STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Bellamy, 2012 OK 20

OBA filed three counts of professional misconduct against Bellamy under RGDP Rule 6 on March 17, 2011.
Bellamy failed to file an answer after proper service and a motion to deem allegations admitted was granted.
A hearing was held August 2, 2011, before a PRT Trial Panel, which Bellamy did not attend.
Trial Panel adopted the complaint’s facts and recommended a two years and one day suspension.
Counts I–III allege neglect, lack of communication, abandonment of cases, failure to return original documents, and cooperation failures.
Court reviews de novo and, after weighing the record, affirms the Panel’s findings and suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Counts I–III proven by clear and convincing evidence?	Bellamy neglected matters, earned fees, failed to communicate, and failed to return documents.	Bellamy offered no responsive defense; arguments not advanced.	Yes; proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Is suspension of Bellamy two years and one day appropriate discipline?	Discipline aligns with Edwards and Whitebook and protects the public.	No direct defense; court receives arguments from Bar; no counterpoint presented.	Two years and one day suspension warranted.
Should Bellamy be taxed with costs of the disciplinary proceeding?	Costs should be assessed to recover proceeding expenses.	No argument presented; no contrary position stated.	Yes; Bellamy ordered to pay $608.04.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Edwards, 2011 OK 3 (Okla. 2011) (similar neglects justified suspension guidance)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72 (Okla. 2010) (probate-related fee neglect supports long suspension)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Chappell, 2004 OK 41 (Okla. 2004) (purposes of disciplinary action; public protection priority)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Funk, 2005 OK 26 (Okla. 2005) (exclusive jurisdiction; de novo review standard)