STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZANNOTTI
2014 OK 25
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Mark Zannotti, an attorney, began a sexual relationship with a former client (J.D.) while representing her in a divorce; he withdrew shortly after the relationship began.
- On October 26, 2011, after a pattern of possessive texts, Zannotti went to J.D.’s home, smashed her cell phone, forcibly restrained and assaulted her (including head-butting and choking), and threatened violence; J.D. obtained a protective order and filed criminal charges.
- Zannotti pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor domestic assault and malicious injury to property; the trial court deferred judgment and sentence for two years and imposed conditions including continued protective order.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed disciplinary charges alleging violations of ORPC Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3; the parties stipulated facts and recommended public reprimand with probation.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found violations and recommended public reprimand with probation; the Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found additional violations relevant to discipline, and imposed a two-year suspension (subject to reconsideration if criminal judgment is accelerated).
- The Court criticized the OBA for failing to use Rule 7 procedures (filing deferred-sentence documents with the Chief Justice) and ordered the OBA to timely furnish certified Rule 7.2 documents in future; the OBA’s motion to assess costs was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zannotti’s conduct violated ORPC Rule 8.4(b) / RGDP Rule 1.3 | Zannotti’s nolo plea and the facts underlying it show criminal conduct (domestic violence, property destruction) that reflects adversely on fitness to practice | Zannotti admitted some wrongdoing, emphasized mitigation (no prior discipline, counseling, restitution) and argued for public censure | Court held Zannotti violated Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3 (lack of fitness; disrepute to profession) |
| Whether Rule 1.8(j) (sexual relationship with client) is implicated and can be disciplined | OBA noted the sexual relationship with a client created a conflict and relates to misconduct | Zannotti relied on stipulations and mitigation; OBA did not plead 1.8(j) in complaint | Court found evidence Zannotti violated Rule 1.8(j) but declined to discipline on that rule due to due process limits; court considered it as an aggravating factor |
| Appropriate level of discipline (public reprimand vs. suspension) | OBA recommended public reprimand and probation (stipulated) | Zannotti sought public censure and probation, citing comparable cases where lesser discipline was imposed | Court imposed a two-year suspension, explaining that the seriousness of the violent offense, relation to a client, public-safety concerns, and the trial court’s two-year deferment justified suspension |
| Procedural rule (Rule 7.2) compliance and effect on discipline timing | OBA filed under RGDP Rule 6 because the district clerk failed to forward deferred-sentence documents under Rule 7.2; OBA asked costs | Zannotti did not contest procedural facts; argued merits should control | Court declined to let procedural misfiling alter substantive discipline; admonished OBA, ordered future compliance, denied the OBA’s costs motion due to procedural irregularity |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (Okla. 1992) (court conducts de novo review of PRT proceedings)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 870 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1994) (criminal conduct need not be labeled criminal/civil to support discipline; violent acts show unfitness)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Casey, 295 P.3d 1096 (Okla. 2012) (criticized OBA practice re: Rule 7 filings; procedural compliance required)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (procedural concerns about OBA filing practices under Rule 7 noted)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Corrales, 280 P.3d 968 (Okla. 2012) (assault/battery plea; cited by parties in mitigation/comparison)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Murdock, 236 P.3d 107 (Okla. 2010) (lesser discipline for non-client-related misdemeanor conduct cited)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (Okla. 2005) (guilty plea to misdemeanor battery; context for discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sopher, 852 P.2d 707 (Okla. 1993) (unwelcome sexual advances toward client as disciplinary precedent)