In re the Reinstatement of Bodnar
367 P.3d 916
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Louis J. Bodnar, admitted in Oklahoma in 1972, resigned his Oklahoma and later Texas bar memberships (resigned in lieu of discipline in Texas in 2003) and sought reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar by petition.
- Texas discipline included public reprimands and a resignation in lieu of discipline based on neglect of multiple family law clients, failure to communicate, failure to provide forwarding information on office closure, and an order to make restitution (no proof of restitution shown).
- Bodnar asserted he had not practiced law since about 2002 and submitted limited evidence of continuing legal competence: a short subscription to the Oklahoma Bar Journal, one CLE class, prior teaching experience, and an affidavit claiming continued study.
- He failed to attach current court-clerk affidavits from counties where he had resided (required by ORGDP Rule 11.1(a)) to prove he had not practiced in courts since termination of his bar rights; the only affidavit was dated 2009 from Oklahoma County.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) recommended reinstatement (finding good moral character and no practice since resignation), but the Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted an independent review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bodnar) | Defendant's Argument (OBA / Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with ORGDP Rule 11.1(a) (court-clerk affidavits) | Bodnar filed a petition for reinstatement but submitted only a 2009 Oklahoma County clerk affidavit | OBA pointed out missing, noncurrent clerk affidavits from counties of residence (Dallas/Tulsa) | Court: Bodnar failed to comply with Rule 11.1(a); affidavits required and current; petition inadequate |
| Proof of no unauthorized practice of law since resignation | Bodnar asserted he had not practiced since 2002 and the PRT found no practice | OBA argued lack of required clerk affidavits and insufficient proof | Court: Failure to present clear-and-convincing evidence he did not practice; petition denied on this ground |
| Competency and learning in the law sufficient for reinstatement without bar exam | Bodnar relied on past teaching, limited CLE, reading Bar Journal briefly, and affidavit of continued study | OBA and Court emphasized scant recent legal activity and comparison to mandatory CLE standards for active attorneys | Court: Evidence insufficient; did not meet clear-and-convincing standard for competency; reinstatement denied |
| Relevance of past Texas discipline and rehabilitation | Bodnar minimized responsibility, blamed staff/others, and pointed to later employment outside private practice | OBA emphasized seriousness of misconduct, lack of restitution, and failure to accept responsibility | Court: Texas resignation in lieu of discipline and failure to make restitution undermine fitness and weight against reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Reinstatement of Kamins, 752 P.2d 1125 (Okla. 1988) (court requires strong proof of fitness and treats PRT findings as advisory)
- In re Reinstatement of Katz, 847 P.2d 1385 (Okla. 1992) (failure to include required clerk affidavits defeats showing of no unauthorized practice)
- In re Reinstatement of Swant, 65 P.3d 275 (Okla. 2003) (Supreme Court makes independent review of reinstatement record)
- In re Reinstatement of Turner, 990 P.2d 861 (Okla. 1999) (limited CLE and Bar Journal reading insufficient to prove competency)
- In re Reinstatement of Hardin, 927 P.2d 545 (Okla. 1996) (insufficient CLE and reading of journals declines reinstatement)
- In re Reinstatement of Farrant, 104 P.3d 567 (Okla. 2004) (presumption that long suspension requires extraordinary showing of competency)
- In re Reinstatement of Munson, 236 P.3d 96 (Okla. 2010) (failure to follow reinstatement rules evidences lack of competency)
- In re Reinstatement of Pate, 184 P.3d 528 (Okla. 2008) (restitution considered evidence of remorse and rehabilitation)
- In re Reinstatement of Thompson, 864 P.2d 823 (Okla. 1993) (resignation pending discipline and failure to protect clients supports denial of reinstatement)