STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILCOX
2014 OK 1
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Wilcox, Oklahoma attorney, suspended and facing Rule 6 (ethics) and Rule 7 (criminal stalking) proceedings; representation of Darlene Love in a workers' compensation matter involved alleged misconduct including advancing funds, mileage claims, and recordkeeping issues.
- OBA alleged violations of ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.15, 3.3(a)(3), 8.4(c) and RGDP Rule 1.3; sought enhanced discipline due to prior disciplinary history.
- PRT heard both Rule 6 and Rule 7 matters in a consolidated proceeding; Wilcox admitted to some improper practices but challenged several allegations.
- Workers' Compensation Court found issues with mileage advances and reimbursement; Love’s case formed the factual basis for Rule 6 claims.
- Wilcox had prior disciplinary actions (Wilcox I and Wilcox II) and a 2011 interim suspension; stalking conviction of Taunia Bozarth led to Rule 7 proceedings and final disbarment.
- Disbarment ordered effective June 30, 2011, with costs assessed and discretion given to bar for future proceedings; Wilcox’s conduct shown to reflect lack of fitness for practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wilcox violate Rules 1.1 and 1.3 by inadequate representation of Love? | Love entitled to timely, competent representation; failure to seek timely mileage reimbursement breached diligence and competence. | Wilcox advanced funds as needed and acted under agreement; lack of time excuses not seeking reimbursements. | Yes; violations found (1.1, 1.3) evidenced by failure to seek timely reimbursements and diligence. |
| Did Wilcox violate Rule 1.8(e) by providing financial assistance to Love for travel? | Advancing funds for travel constitutes prohibited financial assistance. | Advances were necessary to secure treatment and were not court costs; intent to repay. | Yes; Rule 1.8(e) violated by advancing travel funds to a client. |
| Did Wilcox violate Rule 1.15 by safekeeping and handling Love's funds? | Endorsing Love's checks and depositing into his mother's account breached safekeeping; improper handling. | Endorsements were authorized and used as reimbursement; separate from misappropriation. | Yes; Rule 1.15 violated due to failure to keep client funds separate and proper. |
| Did Wilcox violate Rule 8.4(c) by dishonest or deceitful conduct? | Misconduct in bookkeeping and misrepresentations to WC Court. | Recordkeeping was flawed; no intentional deceit shown. | No clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive; insufficient for 8.4(c) violation. |
| Did Wilcox’s stalking conviction implicate Rule 1.3 RGDP and warrant discipline? | Stalking demonstrates lack of fitness to practice law. | Conviction stands; mitigating factors present. | Yes; Rule 1.3 RGDP violated; disbarment warranted based on overall misconduct and stalking conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shanbour, 2003 OK 116, 84 P.3d 107 (2003) (stalking case guiding discipline in similar conduct)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 1990 OK 9, 791 P.2d 815 (1990) (professional discipline considerations; baseline for fitness)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 2006 OK 18, 136 P.3d 590 (2006) (Rule 8.4(c) intent requirement; deception must be shown)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen, 2000 OK 95, 17 P.3d 456 (2000) (rule against providing client financial assistance; champerty concerns)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McArthur, 2013 OK 73, 261 P.3d 605 (2013) (jurisdiction and de novo review; standards for discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Woolfe?, 1997 OK 47, 937 P.2d 988 (1997) (authority on disciplinary standards (illustrative))