STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Latimer
2011 OK 78
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Oklahoma Bar Association filed a second amended Rule 6 complaint alleging five counts of professional misconduct by Latimer.
- Counts allege incompetent representation, lack of communication, misrepresentations, and failure to respond to inquiries.
- Latimer did not appear at the disciplinary hearing; allegations were deemed admitted following the trial panel's sustained motion.
- The trial panel recommended a two-year, one-day suspension and costs of $2,042.42.
- This Court conducted de novo review and affirmed discipline, noting contempt for the disciplinary process and lack of responsiveness.
- Mitigation notes Latimer’s long career, prior service, illness, and community contributions, but does not negate current unfitness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Latimer's misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Latimer violated multiple Rules; actions deemed admitted due to nonresponse. | Latimer did not meaningfully respond; record insufficient to prove all elements. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports misconduct. |
| Is the proposed discipline of suspension appropriate given the misconducts and prior history? | Suspension warranted by the severity, repeated neglect, and contempt for process. | Mitigating factors and long service argue for lesser discipline. | Suspend Latimer for two years and one day; costs to be paid. |
| Should prior disciplinary history influence the sanction here? | Prior discipline demonstrates a pattern warranting suspension. | Mitigation due to prior service and illness should temper discipline. | Prior misconduct considered; sanctions aligned with similar cases. |
| Did Latimer's conduct warrant discipline beyond mere admonition or censure? | Conduct undermined public confidence and court authority; warrants substantial discipline. | The motive and level of intent not fully proven; possible partial remediation. | Disciplinary action warranted; suspension upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 240 P.3d 675 (OK 2010) (recognizes de novo review and nondelegable duty to regulate bar discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pacenza, 136 P.3d 616 (OK 2006) (discusses standards for disciplining attorneys and Rule 6 procedures)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Combs, 202 P.3d 830 (OK 2008) (discipline standards and response obligations in disciplinary proceedings)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 242 P.3d 517 (OK 2010) (suspension for neglect and failure to respond appropriate in bar discipline)