STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Running
2011 OK 75
| Okla. | 2011Background
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal disciplinary complaint March 17, 2011 alleging Running practiced law during suspension for nonpayment of dues.
- Running was suspended June 29, 2009, through May 17, 2010, and later reinstated; he had prior suspensions in 2005 and 2007.
- A client, Sipes, filed a grievance in April 2010; investigation followed a second grievance to determine if Running practiced while suspended.
- At the May 4, 2011 hearing, evidence showed Running represented Sipes in two cases and On Site Welding, LLC, during suspension, without notifying clients or withdrawing.
- Running admitted involvement in the Arvest Bank foreclosure (Whatley litigation) and provided legal advice during suspension, including billing hours he later redacted.
- The Panel found violations of Rule 5.5(a) RPC, Rule 1.3 RGDP, and Rule 9.1 RGDP; the court conducted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Running practice law while suspended? | Bar asserts ongoing legal work during suspension amounted to practice. | Running contends limited, non-systematic work not amounting to active practice. | Yes; actions fell within 'practice of law' during suspension. |
| Was Running's conduct the practice of law in Oklahoma during suspension? | Any legal services in Oklahoma during suspension constitute practice. | Limited work for long-time clients and non-office presence could be non-active. | Yes; conduct in Oklahoma during suspension violated Rule 5.5(a). |
| Did Running fail to comply with Rule 9.1 notification requirements? | Running failed to notify clients and withdraw as counsel as required. | Disputes the sufficiency and timing of notice; argues no Form 9.1 affidavit filed. | Yes; violated Rule 9.1 by not notifying clients or filing compliant withdrawal/affidavits. |
| What sanction is appropriate for Running's conduct? | Eighteen-month suspension is warranted as recommended by the Trial Panel. | Seeks leniency (private reprimand/probation) based on circumstances. | Two years and one day suspension; costs awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Malloy, 142 P.3d 383 (Ok. 2006) (precedent for disbarment/suspension standards and remorse consideration)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Wagener, 107 P.3d 567 (Ok. 2005) (disciplinary sanctions and reasonableness of penalties)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Giger, 72 P.3d 27 (Ok. 2003) (scope and effect of disciplinary rules; public safeguarding)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Giger, 37 P.3d 856 (Ok. 2001) (deference and standard of review for bar discipline)
- R.J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407 (Ok. 1972) (definition of practice of law for disciplinary purposes)