STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL
2014 OK 4
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Bar filed a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against John H. Weigel for six counts of professional misconduct under ORPC and RGDP.
- PRT found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct; recommended six‑month suspension, Bar sought two years plus.
- Court reviews de novo; ultimately suspends Respondent for two years and awards costs.
- Counts allege failure to respond to grievances, neglect, mismanagement of flat fees, lack of trust accounting, and inadequate communication.
- Weigel admitted flat-fee arrangements; Bar alleged unearned fees were deposited in operating accounts and not promptly refunded or accounted for.
- Disqualification factors include prior discipline history (none) and mitigation arguments (bipolar disorder) presented by Respondent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bar proved professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence | Weigel violated multiple ORPC/RGDP rules | Weigel contends no misconduct warranting discipline | Yes; misconduct established; suspension appropriate |
| Whether failure to respond to grievances supports discipline | Failure to respond breached RGDP Rule 5.2 | No mandatory response required in informal stage | Yes; failure to respond constitutes grounds for discipline |
| Whether flat/fixed fees and lack of trust accounting violated ethics rules | Fixed fees improper unless earned and properly accounted | Fees earned upon receipt; no trust account required | Yes; improper deposit of unearned fees and lack of accounting violated Rules 1.1–1.16 |
| Appropriateness of suspension length | Discipline should be two years plus; greater than PRT | Two years is excessive; restraining | Two years suspension appropriate given pattern of neglect and misappropriation |
| Whether costs should be assessed against Respondent | Costs appropriate to disciplinary action | Costs excessive; disputed lunch costs | Costs awarded; minus $85.70 for lunch per this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Perkins, 1988 OK 65 (OK) (disbarment for trust fund misuse and failure to refund unearned fees)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 1992 OK 81 (OK) (discipline considerations by court; deference to PRT recommendations)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 2002 OK 51 (OK) (thirty-day suspension; failure to respond and improper accounting)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 2003 OK 80 (OK) (six-month suspension for neglect and mishandling fees; supervision fault)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Stow, 1998 OK 105 (OK) (three-year suspension for conversion; failure to respond; accounting failures)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Reynolds, 2012 OK 95 (OK) (two years and one day suspension for multiple neglect issues)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Young, 2007 OK 92 (OK) (disbarment for trust fund misuse; example of severe discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67 (OK) (discusses disability and misconduct causation relation to discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Berger, 2008 OK 91 (OK) (recent disciplinary standards; de novo review)