Unprofessional Does Not Mean Dishonest

Kris Kobach, after an incompetent performance at trial in the proof-of-citizenship voter registration case, has reached an agreement resolving the bar complaints about him.  Part of the agreement has been disclosed, indicating he agreed to a diversion program (which is, presumably, on top of the various court imposed sanctions that, e.g., required Kobach to take some remedial legal education courses and pay a fine).  His various spokespeople have a consistent line -- there was no finding of dishonesty.  Well, true, the portion of the agreement says that, but it is a weird way to explain things.  Kobach was found by the judge to have improperly suppressed evidence, and misled the court about the existence of the evidence -- which is the way courts describe lawyers lying and don't want to work through the evidence to distinguish between gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional misstatements. Kobach was not dishonest, but he did engage in unprofessional conduct.  He failed to fulfill his supervisory duties and failed to comply with his obligations towards the court and the opposing party.  That, to me, is serious.  It shows a kind of corruption, particularly egregious because he is so loud in declaring his virtuousness.  Anyway, based on the reports a bar complaints and sanctions, most discipline does not involve dishonesty.  It involves incompetence, just like Kobach's, failure to comply with duties in representation in litigation.  Even the monetary cases include a large portion that really amount to incompetent accounting procedures and lack of safeguards.  Why would one want as a senator someone who is incompetent at his chosen profession?  Kansas is an interesting place.