STATE EX REL. OKL. BAR ASSO. v. Passmore
2011 OK 90
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Bar Association filed RGDP Rule 6 complaint against Passmore II on March 25, 2011 alleging six counts of neglect and failure to respond to grievances and Bar subpoenas; Respondent did not appear at deposition or hearing.
- PRT conducted May 26, 2011; Respondent again failed to appear; Panel recommended two years and one day suspension.
- Counts allege abandonment of six clients: Broyles, Wetherington, Wulf, Bowers, Hogan, Phillips, including failure to communicate, inform, return files, or perform agreed work.
- Evidence included grievances signed by clients, proof of service, subpoenas, and docket sheets; Rule 6.4 admissions motion granted.
- Court found Respondent abandoned clients, failed to respond to Bar, and violated ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(d) and RGDP Rules 1.3, 5.2; Rule 1.5 violation added for unearned fees in Counts II, III, V.
- Conclusion: Respondent disbarred; ordered to pay Bar costs and follow Rule 9.1 to notify clients; reinstatement possible after five years subject to Rule 11 conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abandonment and nonresponse constitute misconduct | Bar asserts neglect and disengagement violated ORPC 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.4(d) and RGDP 1.3, 5.2 | Passmore did not participate or respond; no substantive defense in record | Yes; misconduct established and disbarment ordered |
| Whether failure to return client files and poor communication violate standards | Bar contends failure to inform and return files breached duties to clients | Passmore did not provide defense | Yes; violations found under ORPC 1.3, 1.4, 8.4(d) and RGDP 1.3, 5.2 |
| Whether Rule 1.5 unreasonable-fee violations occurred | Bar alleged unearned fees for Counts II, III, V due to lack of work | Not asserted in defense; evidence shows unperformed work | Yes; Rule 1.5(a) violated; unearned fees improper |
| Appropriate discipline for misconduct | Bar seeks two years and one day suspension as in Whitebook | Record shows repeated nonresponse; severity warranted | Disbarment warranted; akin to McCoy rationale; costs imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 912 P.2d 856 (Okla. 1996) (disbarment affirmed for utter disregard and nonresponse)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 242 P.3d 517 (Okla. 2010) (de novo review; discipline up to disbarment; responsive obligations emphasized)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 84 P.3d 710 (Okla. 2003) (unearned fees may violate Rule 1.5 when no work performed)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pacenza, 136 P.3d 616 (Okla. 2006) (discusses reinstatement procedures post-suspension/disbarment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitworth, 183 P.3d 984 (Okla. 2008) (applies de novo review standard in discipline)