Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court denied Jason Michael Janoski's motion as moot. The court concluded that the conditions and limitations imposed on his law practice upon reinstatement automatically expired after one year, unlike probation conditions that require a formal discharge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should grant Janoski's motion for an order acknowledging that the conditions and limitations imposed on his reinstated law license had expired.
- Whether conditions and limitations imposed as part of reinstatement remain in effect after the one-year period absent a separate court order.
Holdings
- Conditions and limitations imposed when an attorney's license is reinstated to active status automatically expire at the end of the specified one-year period; unlike probation, they do not remain in effect until the Supreme Court separately discharges the attorney.
- The motion is moot and must be denied because the conditions and limitations had automatically expired at the end of the one-year period.
Key quotations
“respondent remains on probation, subject to each condition of probation, until the Supreme Court discharges the respondent from probation, regardless of whether the ordered term of probation has expired.” (at 1)
“Accordingly, the court denies Janoski's motion as moot because the conditions and limitations on his practice of law automatically expired at the end of the one-year period.” (at 1)
Factual background
The Supreme Court of Kansas reinstated Jason Michael Janoski's law license to active status on March 11, 2025, while imposing conditions and limitations on his practice for one year. After that period ended, Janoski moved for an order acknowledging expiration of the conditions, and the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator confirmed his compliance and expressed no objection.
Procedural history
On March 11, 2025, the court reinstated Janoski's law license to active status subject to conditions and limitations for one year. After the one-year period elapsed, Janoski filed a motion seeking acknowledgment that the conditions had expired. The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator reported compliance and stated that it had no objection. The court denied the motion as moot because the conditions had automatically expired.