April 8, 2025

Sent via e-mail to: [email protected]

Also sent via Certified Mail No. 9407-1118-9876-5442-3603-97
State of Kansas
Office of Disciplinary Administrator
Kathleen J. Selzler Lippert
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator
701 Southwest Jackson Street, First Floor,
Topeka, Kansas. 66603-3729

Re: Disciplinary Complaint C-24688

Submitted by: William W. Bridge III, Complainant
Submitted Against Jason L. Reed, Respondent

Dear Ms. Kathleen J. Selzer Lippert:

Thank you for your letter reply dated April 2, 2025 regarding the above Disciplinary Complaint C-
24688.

To avoid any potential confusion going forward about what has occurred thus far regarding the
complaint I have filed, I have taken the time to copy and re-state verbatim the contents of your
April 2, 2025 letter reply below.

My responses thereto will address the issues you stated and presented in your letter about the
above-referenced complaint, as well as all the pertinent issues you seem to have intentionally
ignored and avoided responding to, apparently for the purpose of you avoiding having to justify
the summary dismissal or to secret your decision and responses from public view.

My Disagreement

If it is not apparent to you yet, I strongly disagree with your summary dismissal of the
disciplinary complaint prior to any investigation which is obvious from some of the statements
you made that I will identify below, that proves little or no investigation was done by you and or
the Board.

In my opinion, your written April 2, 2025 decision and conclusion leaves a permanent stain on
the Disciplinary Board, and unfortunately possibly the Kansas Supreme Court as well because of
your lack of abilities or willingness to address such glaring matters set forth in the complaint.
One other thought comes to mind, that is possible corruption and/or just plain-old, obvious
dishonesty. I think the latter.

Any honest person having the requisite knowledge of the law who became aware of both the
methodology of reaching the actual decision you made, could only come to but one conclusion,

1
that being, at least in this case, Disciplinary Counsel at the Board with your oversight actually
does not protect the public at all; but rather, as here, it secretly and privately protects the
lawyers, not the public as stated in the rules or many of the disciplinary cases that are
published.

Lack of Investigation

Decisions with lack of any reasonable investigation such as the decision you made will only
perpetuate, exacerbate and likely foster more attorney misconduct as most likely many
attorneys are already aware of the facade1 your office maintains, however, many in the
profession who actually abide by their oaths and ethics, I am certain, if there was no fear of
retaliation, would also disagree with how you and or the Board have handled this matter. Thank
goodness it is documented by your writings.

How would you ever be able to justify to the public ignoring most of the ethical violations
submitted, instead of cherry-picking the 2 that you felt were sufficient to justify summary
dismissal?

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments
and which can not [sp] fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt
prior to investigation.2 Unfortunately it appears this quote describes you best, you are in
everlasting ignorance from my observations due to, among other things, your lack of
investigation prior to summarily dismissing the complaint.

Multiple Alleged Ethics Violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, Judicial

Conduct and Blatant Disregard of Kansas Statutes

As you know, the complaint of 21 pages with 4 exhibits, (73 pages), set forth multiple alleged
violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) against Attorney Jason L. Reed,
including Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, involving Attorney Reed, specifically,

1
The public’s perception is that any complaint filed alleging serious attorney misconduct will be handled
honestly and appropriately pursuant to the Kansas Supreme Court rules, specifically, Rule 208(c), and others.
Additionally, many published cases on attorney discipline cite the fact that the purpose of a disciplinary
counsel is to “protect the public”. One case set forth within the complaint filed, for example, In re Carson,
252 Kan.399. Syl. P4, 845 P.2d 47 (1993), see Complaint at pg.2, ¶5, Also see, The Kansas attorney
disciplinary system protects the public against attorney misconduct and maintains the integrity of the
profession. https://kscourts.gov/Attorneys/Office-of-Disciplinary-Administration
2
"Contempt prior to investigation" is a phrase attributed to philosopher Herbert Spencer, which suggests
that having a dismissive attitude towards something before fully understanding it can lead to ignorance.
This principle emphasizes the importance of being open-minded and willing to investigate before forming
judgments, as it can block us from seeing the bigger picture and understanding the facts. By overcoming this
contempt, individuals can expand their understanding and correct erroneous beliefs.

2
Rule(s) 3.1; 3.3; 3.4(e); 4.1(a); 4.4; 8.3 and 8.4, see attached complaint, pages 16 through
19.

The exhibits submitted with the complaint are all part of the court record. In addition,
Attorney Reed also had/has culpability for participating in, condoning, failing to object to,
or report his and the magistrate’s misconduct as more fully set forth in the complaint for
potential violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as follows: Canon 1 Rules: 1.1 and
1.2, and; Canon 2, Rule 2.2, and; Canon 2, Rule 2.3 (A) and (B), and; Canon 2, Rule 2.6 (A)
(1), all of which you ignored and failed to address as well. Id. complaint at pages 6-10.

Then of course, I cannot forget to mention herein, the allegations of Attorney Reed’s
partaking in violating certain Kansas statutes, set forth in the complaint, also ignored by
you in your April 2, 2025 reply, as alleged in the complaint, K.S.A. 61-2712 and, K.S.A. 61-
2707 and K.S.A. 61-2714. Id. complaint at pages 7, 14 and,17-19, and, Attorney Reed’s
violation of his Oath of Office. Id. complaint at page 21, ignored by you as well.

Your letter summarily dismissing the complaint intentionally fails to mention or address the
specifics of most of the alleged violations, instead you cowardly hide behind the catch-all
rule, Kansas Supreme Court Rule, 208(c), wherein summary dismissal by you, according to
the rule, apparently prevents any further review or investigation by others in your profession
on the Board. Make no mistake, there will be reviews by others however, exposing your
integrity, ignorance of the law, and your abilities or the lack thereof.

It was my original intention for the complaint to be a kept private matter, however, I now think
the public needs to become more aware of the facts and how such matters were handled by
you representing the disciplinary board and the Kansas Supreme Court. I have not yet decided
how all this will be made public, possibly by an informational website publication for all others
in public to read and arrive at their own conclusions, and/or by forwarding all the
documentation of this complaint to others who may be interested in such matters locally and
nationally as the case may be. Certainly, you must be proud of your written decision made in
matters of such importance, right?, and it is only logical then that you won’t mind the public
awareness that is sure to follow, when your name, Attorney Reed’s name and the magistrate’s
name likely surfaces when any inquires are made online about the Kansas attorney disciplinary
process.

Please do not take this as any sort of disparagement, although the facts may not be comfortable
for you—this is really nothing more than all my documented factual observations based upon
your April 2, 2025 reply letter summarily dismissing the complaint.

I know you will likely not take the time and you most certainly do not have the integrity to
respond to this letter or matter any further, and to me, it really does not matter at this point, as
I know and realize as you should, the disciplinary administrator and the Kansas Supreme Court

3
have exclusive jurisdiction3 over attorney misconduct, despite your statements to the contrary,
that first some reviewing entity or appellate court must first make a finding that an attorney or
judge broke the law, or violated some statute. That statement and position alone should be
embarrassing to you! Extensive research reveals there is not a single published appellate case
where any appellate court in Kansas had jurisdiction to make a finding of attorney misconduct.

That statement made by you is obviously not true as evidenced by almost every other
disciplinary case published for attorney misconduct, wherein there is no mention of such
nonsense. Even the attorneys who have defended allegations of misconduct against them do
not allege that some other reviewing entity or court must first make a finding prior to an
attorney ethics investigation going forward. That is an unadulterated, intentionally misleading
legal maze of mumbo jumbo which nowadays most people recognize as gobbledygook. You
should be ashamed of yourself, thinking anyone would believe such obvious nonsense.

You will see my responses interspersed after each pertinent statement you made in your
April2,2025 letter reply and will be easily identifiable in blue, bold and Italicized, and inserted
immediately after the sentence or paragraph, about each of the individual statements you
made, that I thought appropriate and necessary to respond to. Therefore, going forward, any
potential parties reviewing the matter will have no question about the specifics of your
statements you made that I take issue with, and the reasons why?

The body of your letter is restated verbatim, in black ink, quotations, as follows:

“Dear Mr. Bridge:

I have had the opportunity to consider the disciplinary complaint you filed against attorney,
Jason L Reed.

My Response: It does not appear that you have taken the opportunity to conduct any
reasonable investigation prior to the summary dismissal.

Our office reviews complaints in connection with the Kansas Rules of

Professional Conduct (KRPC). These rules can be found at Kansas Supreme Court Rule 240.
These rules set out a lawyer’s obligations to a client, to the court, to the profession, and to the
public or third persons. Lawyers licensed in Kansas must comply with the rules or face possible
sanctions by the Kansas Supreme Court. Lawyers, licensed in Kansas must comply with the rules
or face possible sanctions by the Kansas Supreme Court. It is our burden to prove a violation of
the rules by clear and convincing evidence.

My Response: I would like to have thought so, but by your documented conduct it does not at
all appear the above statement by you is true, but instead nothing more than fluff or filler text
meant to mislead and confuse the reader.

3
In re Walsh, 286 Kan. 235, 182 P3d 1218 (Kan. 2008)

4
As I understand your complaint, the issues you describe arose from a civil case captioned, and
Invesco Management Co, LLC v. McCurdy Real Estate and Auction, LLC Sedgewick County
District Court Case number SG-2024-SC-316. In this case, you are the pro se plaintiff and filed
a small claims case against the defendant.

In your narrative, you specifically note that any mention of this complaint of a judge or
magistrate is submitted for the express purpose to provide context and should not be construed as
a complaint against the magistrate or judge. Rather, this complaint is against this one attorney for
his “continued participation in and condoning unethical conduct by, among other things, his
failure to object to or report misconduct as may be required and if appropriate.” In a footnote on
the first page of your narrative, you state that you have filed a separate judicial complaint.

At the first hearing (trial), you informed the court that you had a hearing disability. The Court
agreed to attempt to accommodate your hearing impairment by taking a few practical measures,
such as in increasing the PA system volume, and allowing you to have an assistant at trial table to
help you by repeating what was being said during the proceeding. You state these efforts, failed
and attributed the failures to the parties over-speaking each other, different volume levels of
people speaking, and the assistance in ability to keep up with the people speaking. Therefore,
you assert the court, violated relevant provisions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

My Response: That is true as related to the first hearing, but I noticed you have completely
avoided any mention of the ADA violations, obvious to anyone at the Second Hearing, that
was transcribed demonstrating the conduct of the Court and the conduct of Attorney Reed
participating in and failing to object to, or Attorney Reed failing to report the documented (by
Court Transcript) prohibited conduct as set forth in the Kansas Rules of Professional
Conduct, hereinafter the (“KRPC”), the ADA, and the Judicial Code of Conduct, all of which
are set forth in specific detail in the attached Twenty-Three (23) page disciplinary complaint
filed against Attorney Reed, with Four (4) Exhibits containing Seventy-Three (73) pages of
text which are all part of the court record.

This is intentional misconduct on your part according to the prescribed rules of the Kansas
Supreme Court, R. 208(c) of what is required when a complaint is filed, wherein you
unilaterally decide to summarily dismiss the complaint, without any investigation, apparently
based upon your purported expertise and knowledge, or possibly for other selfish or nefarious
reasons.

You alleged this attorney, either conspired 4 or assisted with the court’s violation of the ADA, or
in the alternative, this attorney failed to report the court violation of the ADA.

Whether there was a violation of the ADA is a matter that is outside the jurisdiction of this office.

My Response: That statement by you may be partially true, however, anyone reading the
(Second Hearing) Court Transcript, as a practical matter, could easily and plainly see the
harassment and humiliation that was practiced upon me by simply reading and understanding

4
I never said anywhere within the complaint, that Attorney Reed “conspired” with anyone. Just another one of
your falsities stated In your letter reply concerning my complaint.

5
basic English language. No appeals court is needed to see and determine if there was any
ADA violations, or judicial and attorney misconduct involved by the Court’s statements made
regarding the hearing disability, and Attorney Reed’s failure to report his own misconduct and
in the continued participation himself in that conduct, or to report the judicial misconduct in
how someone with such a disability was treated. In addition to the requirements for the Court
to provide a forum where all parties could participate as provided by the statute, as set forth in
the complaint. K.S.A. 61-2712 at various pages. Id. at complaint pages 4, 6, 7 and 19.

There are other agencies that accept ADA complaints and render such determinations. You
provide no information to support a conclusion that another entity has made a finding that the
ADA was violated in this situation. Kansas Rules are Professional Conduct (KRPC) 8.3(b) states,
“a lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of the applicable rules of judicial
conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the
appropriate authority.”

My Response: It is absurd for you to assert as you have, that a finding by a separate entity is
needed to determine to if an ADA violation occurred when the Court’s own published policies
prohibit certain types of conduct that is evident by reading the transcript of the second
hearing, and in addition, Attorney Reed’s violations of ethics related thereto as he participated
in the Court, and failed to report his own misconduct and that of the Court as well. You fail to
even mention the second hearing transcript documenting the Court and Attorney Reed’s
violation?

Certainly, it is your opinion, the court violated the ADA; however, in this situation, there is no
finding by an entity of an ADA violation. Additionally, it is not obvious, absent of finding by an
entity, there has been a violation of the ADA; as the court did make accommodations for your
hearing impairment.

My Response: Yes, as to the first hearing, but why do you avoid any mention of the
documented court transcribed conduct in the Second Hearing as set forth in the complaint, or
for that matter, any other of the multitude of allegations in the complaint?

It is a mixed question of fact and law whether those accommodations were adequate or
appropriate. Thus, this attorney did not have the “knowledge” required in KRPC 8.3 (b) that a
court committed a violation for which this attorney was required to report.

My Response: If Attorney Reed cannot make such a basic determination on his own from the
plain reading of the Court’s own published policy regarding prohibited conduct for someone
with a disability, as evidenced by the Court transcript, using the english language, then maybe
that too reflects on his ability and fitness as an Attorney, amongst all the other ethics
violations I alleged within the complaint with specificity as well, which you ignored regarding
any mention of the second hearing. That silence by you is very telling.

All ethics complaints against attorneys can be said to be a “mixed question of fact and law”
but according to published cases, that never prevented this diciplinary body from investigating

6
and prosecuting attorney discipline. Are you by this statement saying you or the Board cannot
make such judgments or determinations?

In this complaint you note that you objected to this attorney’s presence and participation at a
small claims hearing and cite to the statute in objections to the court during the hearing(s). It is
your position this attorney violated the professional rules of conduct because he violated the
statutes you cited.

Whether a statute does or does not apply in a case as a substantive question and for the trial or
appellate court to decide. A court role in a proceeding includes hearing a case, making findings
affect, and conclusions of law. This also involves rendering decisions on what statutes are
applicable in a case. Any party that does not agree with the court’s findings of fact conclusions of
law, or decision may have post-trial or appellate remedies.

My Response: Are you serious? The statute has a single simple requirement that prohibits an
attorney’s participation in a small claims matter, that is notice to other parties to allow an
opportunity to obtain counsel of their own choice. Do you really think a court of appeals is
necessary to make a determination if the statute is applicable? It was a small claims hearing,
and he appeared twice, contrary to the statue’s requirement.

Our office assesses complaints, considering the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct.

My Response: After reading your April 2, 2025 reply summarily dismissing the complaint
without any investigation and failing to even read or mention the court transcript, makes it
entirely doubtful that the above statement by you is actually true.

It is our burden to prove a violation by clear and convincing evidence. A claim of factual or legal
error should be resolved by a judge in a post-trial motion or on appeal. Likewise, a claim of legal
or constitutional error should be made with a trial or appellate court. This office is not a
substitute for this judicial review. A claim of legal error should not be raised for the first tme [sic]
in a disciplinary complaint. Our office does not substitute its judgment for that of the Court. At
this time, the facts do not demonstrate a violation of the rules. If the court determines that the
attorney violated a statute, then the matter may be right for further disciplinary investigation.

My Response: Does your office not have the required ability to make such determinations on
whether an attorney violated a simple statute requirement, and therefore, violated his ethics?
If not that, what do you decide? According to this broad statement and your reply, nobody can
file a disciplinary complaint for ethics violations without some other entity first deciding if an
ethics violation or statute was violated. You are being disingenuous.

We do not find that Jason L Reed engaged in unethical conduct. The complaint does not provide
adequate factual details to show that Jason L Reid violated the Kansas Rules or Professional
Conduct.

My Response: Of course not, based upon no investigation by your office, and intentionally
preventing or failing to consider indisputable facts of record, it is no wonder you cannot make

7
such a finding. What you see, depends upon where you look, here you failed and intentionally
avoided any such finding, by a simple unilateral determination that no investigation was
necessary.

The complaint, therefore, is dismissed pursuant to the authority granted Rule 208.

Even though we have dismissed your complaint, that does not mean that you should not have
made your complaint. Your complaint is appreciated and assures that the conduct of Kansas
attorneys is of the highest standards.

For the reason stated above, the complaint is dismissed, pursuant to the authority granted in Rule
208(b)(3) as the matter is outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. Once the Court has resolved the
matter, you could certainly resubmit your complaint at that time attaching a copy of the Courts
findings and rulings, and your which will be considered.

My Response: If any even cursory investigation was done, you would have known that there is
no appeal pending. This is proof that no investigation was performed by you, as the case was
settled and dismissed, including the appeal. Had you investigated, even a cursory review of the
Court docket revealed there can be no appeal. Another disingenuous, inexcusable act on your
part.

Sincerely,
[signature]
Kathleen J. Selzler Lippert
Deputy Disciplinary Administrator”

Unfortunately, what you and Attorney Reed are about to learn soon, is that all of your above-
described efforts to sweep this disciplinary complaint under the rug so to speak, and summarily
avoid an investigation will most likely and actually have the opposite effect.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
William W. Bridge III

P.S. Only the published version of this letter will contain a copy of the actual disciplinary
complaint “as filed” and all court record exhibits as well.