IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF CLAYBORNE, 2017 OK 93

Mark Anthony Clayborne was convicted of subornation of perjury on April 3, 2011; he received an interim suspension June 20, 2011 and was disbarred October 28, 2013, with disbarment running from the interim suspension date.
Clayborne became eligible to seek reinstatement on June 20, 2016 and filed a petition December 6, 2016.
The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) objected; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) held a hearing March 28, 2017 and reported June 14, 2017.
The PRT found Clayborne satisfied Rule 11.5 reinstatement requirements: no unauthorized practice during suspension, compliance with procedural rules, payment of fees, demonstrated good moral character and rehabilitation.
The PRT noted Clayborne completed 51 CLE credits (including 8 ethics) while disbarred, showed remorse and respect for the jury verdict, and that his circumstances were analogous to prior reinstatement precedents.
The Supreme Court adopted the PRT recommendation and ordered reinstatement on November 20, 2017, subject to limited CLE and compliance conditions.

Issue	Clayborne's Argument	OBA's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner met Rule 11.5 prerequisites for reinstatement	He satisfied procedural requirements, demonstrated rehabilitation, good moral character, and CLE completion	OBA argued evidence was insufficient to overcome the heavy burden to show he would not repeat misconduct	Court held Clayborne met the clear-and-convincing burden and reinstated him
Whether petitioner engaged in unauthorized practice during suspension	He did not engage in unauthorized practice	OBA suggested concerns about compliance during suspension	Court found no unauthorized practice occurred
Whether petitioner showed adequate remorse and changed conduct	He expressed remorse, accepted jury verdict, and pledged not to repeat misconduct	OBA disputed sincerity and sufficiency of rehabilitation evidence	Court credited petitioner’s testimony and PRT’s assessment of sincerity
Whether precedent supports reinstatement in these circumstances	Analogous to prior reinstatement cases (e.g., Spilman)	OBA contended distinctions undermined analogy	Court found circumstances similar to prior granted reinstatements and relied on those precedents

In re Reinstatement of Swant, 65 P.3d 275 (Okla. 2003) (sets forth factors/additional considerations for attorney reinstatement)
In re Reinstatement of Spilman, 104 P.3d 576 (Okla. 2004) (reinstatement granted where rehabilitation and conduct met standards)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Clayborne, 311 P.3d 846 (Okla. 2013) (disbarment decision and background of petitioner)