The Kansas Supreme Court has disbarred Scott William Anderson, removing his license to practice law in the state following his conviction on 14 counts of financial fraud. The disbarment order, dated March 14, 2025, formally accepted Anderson's voluntary surrender of his Kansas law license.
Anderson was admitted to the Kansas bar on June 9, 2006, giving him nearly two decades of legal practice before his conviction. On November 14, 2024, a jury convicted Anderson of 14 charges of financial fraud after finding that he engaged in multiple deceptive practices to defraud lending institutions and others.
The jury's findings detailed a pattern of fraudulent behavior that included providing false information on loan applications, forging signatures on legal documents, and directing his employees to impersonate other individuals. These actions formed the basis for the criminal charges that ultimately led to his conviction and subsequent disbarment.
Rather than contest the disciplinary proceedings, Anderson chose to voluntarily surrender his law license. On March 4, 2025, Anderson, represented by attorney John J. Ambrosio, joined with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator in filing a joint motion asking the Kansas Supreme Court to accept his voluntary surrender under Supreme Court Rule 230(b).
The joint motion acknowledged that the facts underlying Anderson's criminal conviction constituted repeat violations of Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b). This rule specifically states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects."
The Kansas Supreme Court granted the parties' joint motion and formally disbarred Anderson under Rule 230(b). The court's order revoked Anderson's license and privilege to practice law in Kansas, effectively ending his legal career in the state.
As part of the disbarment process, the court ordered the Office of Judicial Administration to strike Anderson's name from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas. This removal took effect immediately upon the date of the court's order, ensuring Anderson can no longer represent clients or practice law in any capacity within Kansas jurisdiction.
The court's order addressed the impact on any pending disciplinary cases against Anderson. Under Rule 230(b)(1)(C), any Kansas disciplinary case pending against Anderson terminated effective the date of the disbarment order. However, the court noted that the Disciplinary Administrator retains authority to direct an investigator to complete any pending investigation for the purpose of preserving evidence.
The disbarment carries significant administrative and financial consequences for Anderson. The court directed that the order be published in the Kansas Reports, the state's official legal publication, ensuring public notice of his removal from the bar. Additionally, the court assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings to Anderson under Supreme Court Rule 229.
Anderson must also comply with Supreme Court Rule 231, which governs the obligations of disbarred attorneys. This rule typically requires disbarred lawyers to notify clients of their inability to continue representation, transfer client files appropriately, and take other steps to protect client interests during the transition.
The case represents a clear example of how criminal conduct can result in the loss of professional licensing for attorneys. Anderson's conviction on multiple fraud charges directly contradicted the ethical standards required of legal practitioners, particularly those related to honesty and trustworthiness in professional dealings.
Financial fraud by attorneys is taken seriously by state bar organizations and courts because it undermines public confidence in the legal profession. Lawyers are held to high ethical standards due to their role as officers of the court and their access to client funds and confidential information.
The voluntary surrender of Anderson's license, while avoiding the need for a contested disciplinary hearing, still resulted in the same outcome as a traditional disbarment proceeding. The joint motion process allowed for a more efficient resolution while ensuring appropriate consequences for Anderson's criminal behavior.
Anderson's disbarment is now final, and his name has been permanently removed from the Kansas bar roster. The publication of the disbarment order in the Kansas Reports serves as official notice to the legal community and the public that Anderson is no longer authorized to practice law in Kansas.
This case underscores the serious consequences that criminal convictions can have on professional licenses, particularly for attorneys who are expected to maintain the highest standards of professional conduct throughout their careers.