STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILCOX, 2014 OK 1

Wilcox, an Oklahoma attorney, is disbarred in a consolidated Rule 6/Rule 7 proceeding arising from a workers' compensation representation and a stalking conviction.
Love, Wilcox's client in the workers' compensation matter, alleged improper handling of travel reimbursements and funds during 2003–2007.
Wilcox advanced funds to Love for travel, rather than seeking early reimbursement from insurers, and kept poor records of mileage claims.
The Workers' Compensation Court found issues with Wilcox's handling of reimbursements and payments, and Talbot later took over Love's case.
Wilcox endorsed and deposited Love's disability checks into his mother's account and later sought reimbursement for those funds, creating safekeeping concerns.
Wilcox's stalking conviction involved Taunia Bozarth, the wife of a sitting judge, leading to additional disciplinary consequences.
This Court conducted de novo review and concluded multiple ORPC violations plus the stalking conviction warranted disbarment, effective June 30, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rules 1.1 and 1.3 violations in Love matter	OBA alleges Wilcox failed competent representation and diligence.	Wilcox contends he advanced funds and had an implied arrangement for reimbursement; time constraints explained delays.	Wilcox violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3.
Rule 1.8(e) violation for advances	OBA proves Wilcox advanced funds for travel in violation of 1.8(e).	Wilcox claims permissible advances or course of dealing.	Wilcox violated Rule 1.8(e).
Rule 1.15 safekeeping of client funds	OBA shows Wilcox mismanaged and co-mingled funds by endorsing deposits to his mother's account.	Wilcox argues funds were kept separate and rights recognized; testimony contested.	Wilcox violated Rule 1.15.
Rule 8.4(c) dishonesty/deceit	OBA asserts Wilcox engaged in deceptive conduct in financial representations.	Wilcox contends no clear intent to deceive; accounting poor but not deceptive intent proved.	No clear and convincing evidence of Rule 8.4(c) violation.
Rule 1.3 RGDP disciplining for stalking conviction	Stalking conviction shows lack of fitness and violates professional standards.	Mitigation arguments and collateral attack concerns; focus remains on conduct.	Wilcox violated Rule 1.3 RGDP via stalking conviction.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shanbour, 84 P.3d 107 (2003 OK 116) (stalking conviction and related disciplinary considerations)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen, 17 P.3d 456 (2000 OK 95) (ban on nonlitigation advances; champerty concerns)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 136 P.3d 590 (2006 OK 18) (intent requirement for Rule 8.4(c) violations)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990 OK 9) (standard for professional fitness and public confidence)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 18 (2003 OK 56) (case-specific discipline considerations and deterrence)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005 OK 91) (discipline as protective of public and profession)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McArthur, 261 P.3d 605 (2013 OK 73) (non-delegable, constitutional responsibility; de novo review)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon, 295 P.3d 1 (2012 OK 77) (mitigation and public protective considerations)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 304 P.3d 453 (2013 OK 42) (fitness to practice and immediate suspension precedents)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 309 P.3d 108 (2013 OK 49) (de novo review standards in discipline)