STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Cox
2011 OK 73
| Okla. | 2011Background
- OBA filed misconduct complaint against Cox March 25, 2010 under RGDP Rule 6.1, alleging five counts (two dismissed before evidence).
- PRT found violations of ORPC Rule 1.3 and RGDP Rule 5.2/ORPC Rule 8.1(b) based on Cox's probate handling and failure to cooperate.
- Cox was retained in 2003 for the Thomasson estate; in 2004 he obtained a tax payment but did not complete tax filing or close the estate for nearly three years.
- Cox failed to respond to OBA grievances (Counts III & V) and did not appear for a deposition or provide adequate information.
- Evidence showed Cox promised to finish the probate and assumed costs with another attorney taking over; no final accounting or tax release was provided.
- Cox ultimately admitted neglect, expressed remorse, and the PRT recommended public censure and cost reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cox violate Rule 1.3 for neglect and lack of reasonable diligence? | Cox neglected probate duties and delayed final accounting. | Cox argues mitigated personal issues and attempts to remedy. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of Rule 1.3 violation. |
| Did Cox violate ORPC 8.1(b) and RGDP 5.2 by failing to respond to grievances? | Cox failed timely, fully to respond to inquiries. | Cox disputes adequacy or timeliness of responses. | Yes; violations established. |
| Should Cox be disciplined for failing to cooperate with the OBA investigation? | Nonresponse and avoidance warranted discipline. | Cox contends mitigating factors reduce discipline. | Yes; public censure appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcox, 227 P.3d 642 (Okla. 2009) (de novo review; misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (Okla. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard in disciplinary matters)
- Brewer, 998 P.2d 605 (Okla. 1999) (probate neglect plus failure to respond supports public censure)
- Hulett, 183 P.3d 1014 (Okla. 2008) (range of discipline from public censure to suspension)
- Green, 936 P.2d 947 (Okla. 1997) (public censure appropriate where no affirmative harmful acts)
- Kelley, 48 P.3d 777 (Okla. 2002) (Rule 1.3 and related rules interpreted in context of neglect)