STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Conrady
2012 OK 29
| Okla. | 2012Background
- OBA filed a disciplinary complaint March 16, 2011 alleging misconduct under RGDP Rule 6.1.
- PRT found violations of ORPC Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3, recommending a two years plus one day suspension.
- Facts concern Conrady’s February 1, 2009 shooting rampage at McCroskey and Pierce’s residence, resulting in property damage and threats, but no injuries.
- Conrady pled guilty to six counts in Okmulgee County; sentencing deferred, later entered guilty pleas with five-year concurrent probation.
- OBA’s proceeding is reviewed de novo; clear and convincing evidence is required; evidence includes guilty pleas and violent conduct.
- Court ultimately suspends Conrady for two years and one day and orders payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the shooting constitutes professional misconduct under ORPC 8.4(b). | OBA asserts the criminal conduct reflects on fitness to practice law. | Conrady argues the acts are not connected to law practice and do not affect honesty or trustworthiness. | Yes; conduct reflects on fitness and supports misconduct. |
| What discipline is appropriate given the misconduct and mitigating factors? | OBA supports substantial discipline (disbarment in some views). | Conrady seeks lesser discipline (censure or deferment). | Two years and one day suspension appropriate after weighing mitigating factors. |
| Was the disciplinary process timely and properly conducted given procedural notes in Fraley and related rules? | Procedural integrity and timely action are essential; delays undermine public trust. | Disciplinary process pursued after charges and plea; diversion issues discussed but not decisive. | Court acknowledges procedural concerns but maintains discipline; emphasizes necessity of formal suspension when felonies occur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 201 P.3d 862 (OK 2008) (felony pleas can show professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(b))
- Shanbour v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 84 P.3d 107 (OK 2003) (plea to sex offenses supports Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP 1.3)
- Arnett v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 815 P.2d 170 (OK 1991) (criminal convictions can support misconduct irrespective of practice connection)
- Armstrong v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 791 P.2d 815 (OK 1990) (discipline for criminal conduct reflecting on fitness to practice)
- Wilcox v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 227 P.3d 642 (OK 2009) (clear and convincing evidence required in disciplinary findings)