STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Hayes
2011 OK 71
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Bar filed a disciplinary complaint against Hayes under RGDP Rule 6, alleging violations of RPC Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3.
- After stipulations and a hearing, the PRT recommended private reprimand; Bar sought public discipline, Hayes sought private reprimand.
- Hayes pled guilty by Alford plea to assault and battery arising from an April 2010 incident and received a suspended sentence of 90 days.
- In 2004 Hayes learned his then-wife had stolen over $200,000 from his clients’ trust account and confronted Adams regarding repayment.
- Between 2008 March and April, multiple protective orders were filed; communications among Hayes, Adams, and Hayes' ex-wife became hostile.
- On April 24, 2008 Hayes placed a large posterboard with an explicit text on Adams’ car, called Adams, and Adams was injured during the ensuing confrontation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Hayes violate RPC 8.4(b) and RGDP 1.3? | Bar: Hayes’ conduct was inappropriate and reflected negatively on the profession. | Hayes: No violation beyond isolated misconduct; actions occurred outside attorney-client context. | Yes, violations established by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is suspension an appropriate discipline for Hayes’ misconduct? | Bar seeks more than a reprimand to protect the public and profession. | Hayes argues for lesser discipline given mitigation and lack of client harm. | Thirty-day suspension is appropriate. |
| Should mitigation factors affect the discipline imposed? | Mitigating factors support a significant sanction to deter misconduct. | Mitigating factors lessen the need for severe discipline. | Mitigation considered but does not preclude suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (misconduct outside personal misconduct can result in discipline; prior cases guide level)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (Okla. 2005) (discipline for misconduct reflecting on fitness to practice; proportionate sanction guidance)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Murdock, 236 P.3d 107 (Okla. 2010) (misconduct involving sexual battery; public censure as discipline benchmark)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Askins, 882 P.2d 1054 (Okla. 1993) (public confidence and deterrence as central goals of discipline)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Foster, 995 P.2d 1138 (Okla. 2000) (discipline for outside attorney-client context misconduct)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 84 P.3d 710 (Okla. 2003) (public interest and deterrence guiding discipline decisions)
- Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Allford, 152 P.3d 190 (Okla. 2006) (nondeferable responsibility to determine misconduct and appropriate discipline)