In re Arkell (, 377 P.3d 414 (Kan. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Arkell (, 377 P.3d 414 (Kan. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
87 citation events (87 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Paddock (kanctapp, 2026-04-17)
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Paddock
Kan. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" State v. Howard
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" State v. Kent
Kan. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919-20 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" State v. Banister
Kan. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" In re T.A.
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
discussed Cited "see" State v. King
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016); see also K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3608(c) and K.S.A. 60-2101(a) (providing jurisdictional parameters for appeals by defendants in criminal cases).
cited Cited "see" State v. Ewing
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" State v. Myers
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016). 4 In a criminal case, the State's right to appeal is limited by the jurisdictional bases provided by statute.
cited Cited "see" State v. Roberson
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 919 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016).
cited Cited "see" State v. Stevenson
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 922 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016) (Smith I); Patton, 287 Kan. at 225 .
discussed Cited "see" In re D.H. (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Arkell, 304 Kan. 754 , 377 P.3d 414 (2016). 14 When it addressed this issue, the district court found that Arkell-Roca's representation was by definition below the standard of representation expected of an attorney and, as such, would ordinarily call for reversal.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Daniel J. Arkell, Respondent
Bar Docket 22161.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Jul 7, 2016.
377 P.3d 414
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In a letter signed June 30, 2016, addressed to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent Daniel J. Arkell, an attorney admitted to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 390).

At the time the respondent surrendered his license, five complaints had been docketed by the office of the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation. The complaints alleged that the respondent violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 442) (competence); 1.7 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) (conflicts of interest); 3.3 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 601) (candor to the tribunal); 4.4 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 632) (transaction with persons other than clients); and 8.4(b), (c), (d), and (g) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 672) (misconduct).

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disci-plinaiy Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Daniel J. Arkell be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Daniel J. Arkell from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 401).