STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Edwards
2011 OK 3
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal complaint against Timothy Edwards on April 8, 2010 alleging multiple ORPC violations and RGDP violations.
- Edwards did not answer the complaint; allegations deemed admitted under Rule 6.4 RGDP; a trial panel conducted a hearing on June 29, 2010, where Edwards failed to appear.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) heard evidence including 25 exhibits and client trust account records; the PRT recommended a two years and one day suspension.
- Edwards had prior suspensions for nonpayment of dues and noncompliance with mandatory CLE requirements, noted by the Court during disposition.
- Count I involved Travis Wilson’s workers’ compensation claim, settlement funds, and mismanagement of medical bills from the trust account; Counts II, III, and IV alleged nonresponse to grievances, potential misappropriation, and failure to provide required records and accounting.
- The Court suspended Edwards from the practice of law for two years and one day and assessed costs of $578.68; reinstatement would require full compliance and proper restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Edwards' conduct in Wilson matter professional misconduct? | Edwards violated trust and diligence rules by misusing funds and failing to pay medical expenses. | Edwards did not appear; no defense presented; arguments were not advanced. | Yes; conduct violated multiple ORPC/RGDP provisions and constitutes misconduct. |
| Was Edwards' handling in Jones matter professional misconduct? | Edwards failed to remit settlement proceeds, pay medical providers, and provide accounting. | No defense presented; no timely response to grievances. | Yes; misconduct supported by failed disbursements and lack of accounting. |
| Did Edwards' failure to respond to grievances and to the formal complaint amount to professional misconduct? | Edwards ignored multiple requests and subpoenas, violating RGDP and ORPC duties to respond. | No defense offered due to nonappearance; none presented. | Yes; failure to respond supported disciplinary violation. |
| Is suspension appropriate given Edwards’ conduct and disciplinary history? | Sustained misconduct warrants suspension; prior suspensions and disregard of process justify discipline. | No defense presented; mitigating factors not shown due to absence. | Yes; two years and one day suspension was appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Stutsman, 990 P.2d 854 (1999 OK 62) (de novo review; professional misconduct findings reviewed by Supreme Court)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 833 P.2d 260 (1992 OK 81) (de novo review; Court not bound by PRT recommendations)
- Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Phillips, 786 P.2d 1242 (1990 OK 4) (neglect and failure to respond; three-year suspension discussed)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Berger, 202 P.3d 822 (2008 OK 91) (bar discipline review; exclusive original jurisdiction; de novo review)