¶1dissenting: Stuart W. Gribble should be disbarred.
¶2The hearing panel’s finding No. 3 is pertinent:
“In 1994, respondent was serving as a part-time Hearing Officer for the Kansas Department of Revenue. Respondent’s primary responsibility was to preside at *987drivers license suspension cases. Respondent was also engaged in the private practice of law. Respondent testified he routinely presided over the morning docket of cases and another hearing officer, John Lehecka, presided over the afternoon docket. Unknown to Mr. Lehecka, respondent dismissed eight cases from Mr. Lehecka’s docket with notations such as ‘officer failed to appear’ and ‘dismissed per officer’. All eight cases dismissed by respondent involved his own clients. Respondent did not sign the dismissal orders as attorney of record for the defendants. His signature appears on the pleadings as Hearing Officer. In one case, respondent made a notation on the docket sheet that it had been reset when it had been dismissed. He advised the panel he was intentionally trying to hide the fact he had dismissed the case from Mr. Lehecka.” (At oral argument counsel corrected the reference to the eight cases, agreeing that all eight cases were dismissed, but noting five were from Gribble’s docket and three from Lehecka’s).
¶3The panel also found that the respondent provided false information to the Disciplinary Administrator’s investigator and failed to follow the recommendations of Dr. Timothy Scanlan (the respondent had been referred to Dr. Scanlan by the Chair of the Impairment Committee of the Wichita Bar Association).
¶4The panel observed that the respondent seems to genuinely believe that the ultimate outcome of his actions did not result in serious wrongdoing.
¶5The respondent held a position of trust under appointment by the Governor of Kansas as a hearing officer for the Department of Revenue. His cavalier treatment of die Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) is evidenced by the panel’s observation that the respondent “testified he blamed the system in part for allowing the circumstances that gave rise to his complaints to occur” (the Department of Revenue had no written policy prohibiting hearing officers from handling DUI cases in private practice).
¶6In June 1996, the respondent received informal admonition for a disciplinary infraction involving allegations of failing to properly communicate with his client (see Rule 203[a][4] [1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 193]).
¶7In the present proceeding, the respondent violated MRPC 1.11 (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 295) (representing a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer), 8.4 (c) (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mis*988representation), and 8.4 (d) (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 350) (engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
¶8The respondent did not appear in this court, according to his counsel, because of business problems. Counsel also opined that he suspected the respondent is embarrassed and ashamed about what he has done.
¶9The respondent wrongfully dismissed cases before him involving his clients. To benefit his clients, he falsified not only his own hearing docket but also the docket of another hearing examiner. His actions mock the MRPC.