STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BERNHARDT
2014 OK 20
| Okla. | 2014Background
- William G. Bernhardt (admitted 1986) pleaded guilty to Oklahoma County charges: Driving While Under the Influence (felony), Aggravated Attempting to Elude (felony), and Transportation of an Open Container (misdemeanor); he also had a separate Nebraska alcohol conviction and a deferred sentence through 2018.
- He has multiple prior alcohol-related convictions (2007 DUIs, public intoxication) and has been diagnosed as an alcoholic with a long history of binge drinking.
- Bernhardt has not practiced law since 1996, is a successful author/teacher, and asserts no clients were harmed by his conduct.
- He completed inpatient and outpatient treatment (Promises Treatment Center, Dr. Philip Hyde follow-up), has maintained sobriety since December 2011, used monitoring devices (interlock, transdermal bracelet, GPS), and participates in Lawyers Helping Lawyers and AA.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended lifting an interim suspension and imposing a deferred suspension of two years and one day with probationary conditions; the Bar and respondent agreed to the recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether criminal convictions demonstrating unfitness to practice justify discipline | Bar: Guilty pleas to repeated alcohol-related offenses demonstrate indifference to legal obligations and warrant discipline | Bernhardt: Alcoholism is mitigated by sustained sobriety, treatment, no client harm, and willingness to comply with monitoring and peer programs | Court: Guilty pleas provide basis for discipline; repeated DUI offenses reflect adversely on fitness and justify discipline |
| Appropriate form of discipline for repeated alcohol-related offenses | Bar: Discipline consistent with precedent — suspension/probation with treatment and monitoring | Bernhardt: Deferred suspension with probation and treatment is sufficient given rehabilitation and no client harm | Court: Adopted deferred suspension (2 years + 1 day) with conditions (abstinence, Lawyers Helping Lawyers contract, waiver of confidentiality, weekly mentor contact); interim suspension lifted |
| Whether AA attendance should be mandatory | Bar/precedent: AA or equivalent often required | Respondent & treating psychologist: AA not necessarily beneficial; Lawyers Helping Lawyers preferred | Court: Declined to mandate AA; respondent may attend but is not required |
| Supervision and monitoring adequacy while respondent remains under deferred felony sentence | Dissent: Felony deferred sentence is incompatible with practice; stricter supervision (testing, incorporation of court probation terms) required | Majority: Probationary terms agreed upon are sufficient; suspension deferred subject to monitoring by Lawyers Helping Lawyers and reporting | Court: Majority accepted less stringent monitoring; dissenters would impose suspension for duration of felony probation |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990) (not every felony conviction facially demonstrates unfitness to practice law)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 304 P.3d 453 (2013) (reaffirming limits on when DUI convictions indicate unfitness)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (2009) (appellate review of disciplinary tribunal is de novo)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Burns, 145 P.3d 1088 (2006) (suspension plus probation and mandatory treatment/monitoring for repeated DUI offenses)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (2007) (deferred suspension with stringent sobriety and monitoring conditions for alcoholic attorney)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005) (public censure and probation with treatment for offenses committed while intoxicated)