subpoenas-mailing notice for two subpoenas ten days after service and mailing notice for one subpoena seven days after service. Biocore, 181 F.R.D. at 667. In so doing, Butler violated, Fed. R.Civ.P. 45(b)(1). Butler argues in the alternative that, even if he violated procedural rules, the district court erred when it found that he had violated MRPC 8.4(g) because his repeated violations of procedural rules could not constitute a violation. Appellant’s Brief at 15-16. The district court held that “a course of errors can violate Rule 8.4(g) when it raises evidence of incompetence, even when the errors are unintentional.” Biocore, 181 F.R.D. at 674 (citing In the Matter of Jenkins, 255 Kan. 797, 877 P.2d 423, 429 (Kan.1994)); State v. Dixon, 233 Kan. 465, 664 P.2d 286, 291 (Kan.1983) (<HOLDING>) (quotations omitted). Butler attempts to
holding that an attorney violates ethical standards when he is unable or refuses to accept and perform the obligations of the legal profession holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that in light of kelms persistent refusal to accept an appointed attorney to hire his own attorney or to expressly waive his right to an attorney the district courts decision forcing kelm to represent himself was fair and reasonable holding that a defendants statements to his attorney that he was going to kill his wife and motherinlaw could support a conviction for terroristic threats because the defendants frequent use of law books and greaterthanusual appreciation of the contours of attorneyclient privilege would allow a jury to conclude that the defendant knew the attorney would have had an ethical duty to report the threat