State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Townsend
2012 OK 44
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Bar Association filed a ten-count complaint accusing Townsend of professional misconduct under Rule 6, 6.2A, and 10; Townsend did not admit the allegations.
- During a Rule 6 hearing, Townsend admitted missing court dates, failing to communicate, lack of diligence, and not timely returning client files.
- Townsend faced an extended period of debilitating depression and anxiety, with contributing personal stressors including divorce, child custody issues, a friend's suicide, and a hostile office breakup.
- Interim suspension was entered March 25, 2010; reinstatement was sought after about 22 months, with the matter proceeding under Rule 6; confidentiality issues arose under Rule 10.
- Trial panel recommended private reprimand with costs; Bar sought a public sanction; ultimately the Supreme Court issued a public reprimand and ordered payment of costs totaling $1,193.91, with reinstatement granted.
- Court noted Townsend’s remorse, participation in Lawyers Helping Lawyers, ongoing therapy, and support system; required or encouraged continued counseling post-reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Townsend commit professional misconduct warranting discipline? | Townsend engaged in neglect, communication failures, and failure to return files. | Townsend argues mitigating factors, including depression and rehabilitation efforts, address culpability. | Yes, misconduct established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is Townsend currently incapacitated from practicing law? | Evidence shows ongoing mental health concerns affecting practice. | Post-treatment, no current incapacity precludes practice; capable of complying with high standards. | Townsend is no longer incapacitated; capable of practicing law. |
| What discipline is appropriate for Townsend's misconduct? | Discipline should reflect severity and protect the public; empirical precedents justify stronger sanctions. | Mitigating factors and rehabilitation support suggest a lesser sanction is appropriate. | Public reprimand with costs; not a harsher sanction. |
| Should Townsend be required to pay costs, and in what amount? | Costs should be assessed to cover investigation and proceedings. | Costs should be limited to reasonable amounts consistent with rules. | Townsend ordered to pay $1,193.91 in costs. |
| Should Townsend’s reinstatement be granted on the terms proposed? | Stability and mitigation support reinstatement with monitoring. | Townsend should be allowed to resume practice with ongoing therapy and monitoring. | Reinstatement granted; public reprimand imposed; continued therapy encouraged. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, 240 P.3d 675 (OK Supreme Court, 2010) (clear and convincing standard; rehabilitative public interest)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pacenza, 2006 OK 23, 136 P.3d 616 (OK Supreme Court, 2006) (de novo review and disciplinary framework)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517 (OK Supreme Court, 2010) (fact-finding and standard of proof in discipline cases)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 2007 OK 31, 163 P.3d 527 (OK Supreme Court, 2007) (addressing confidentiality and incapacity interplay in discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 2006 OK 18, 136 P.3d 590 (OK Supreme Court, 2006) (mitigating circumstances in discipline analysis)