STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LAYTON
2014 OK 21
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Bar Association charged Layton with misconduct for failing to disclose a witness's changing testimony and denying prior talk with the witness.
- Trial court record lacked a transcribed bench and chamber conference, leading to disputes over notices and witness preparation.
- Witness Miller testified inconsistently with his police statement; defense objected to nondisclosure of Miller's prior statements.
- Layton admitted brief, non-substantive conversations with Miller occurred but denied prior preparation or knowledge of his change in testimony.
- PRT found no clear and convincing evidence of violations warranting discipline; Bar sought suspension, but the Supreme Court de novo review exonerated Layton and dismissed costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Layton violated Rule 3.3 and 8.4 by denying speaking with Miller | Bar argues Layton knowingly lied to the court | Layton asserts miscommunication and lack of intent | Discipline not warranted; charges dismissed |
| Whether the missing transcript of bench/chamber conferences affected discipline | Bar relies on nonrecorded proceedings to prove misconduct | Record gaps reflect proceedings; no clear misconduct proven | Disciplinary proceeding dismissed; exoneration affirmed |
| Whether actual knowledge or intent is required to sanction candor violations | Bar contends knowing falsehood established misconduct | Layton argues lack of intent; inadvertent misstatement | No discipline; conduct insufficient for rule violation under the record |
| Whether the Bar could impose suspension instead of public censure | Bar seeks suspension beyond public censure | Mitigating factors and lack of clear proof of knowing falsehood | Discipline not imposed; case dismissed and costs denied |
| Whether the Bar is entitled to costs | Bar seeks costs for investigation | No costs awarded against respondent given dismissal | Costs denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 863 P.2d 1136 (1993 OK 91) (knowingly false statements require actual knowledge; intent not needed for violation ruling)
- Krug v. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n, 92 P.3d 67 (2004 OK 28) (false statement to a tribunal requires actual knowledge; intent not required to prove violation)
- McMillian v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 770 P.2d 892 (1989 OK 16) (Knowingly making a false statement requires knowledge; motivation immaterial)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Stubblefield, 766 P.2d 979 (1988 OK 141) (discipline for misrepresentation in proceedings; context relevant)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Peveto, 620 P.2d 392 (1980 OK 182) (discipline based on professional misconduct; disciplinary scales applied)