STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL
2014 OK 4
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Bar filed Rule 6 disciplinary action against John H. Weigel; trial panel recommended six months; de novo review led to a two-year suspension and cost liability.
- Counts I–VI allege multiple instances of professional misconduct, including failure to respond to grievances, neglect, lack of communication, and improper fee handling.
- Count I ( Boyd grievance): Weigel failed to respond toBar inquiries concerning a grievance about representation of a client’s son.
- Count II ( Whiteley grievance): He accepted a flat fee, deposited it in his operating account, failed to provide an accounting, and did not earn or refund unearned portions.
- Count III ( DeLeon grievance): He accepted a flat fee, failed to communicate, did not complete expected work, and produced deficient or late filings; a restitution amount was ordered in related litigation.
- Counts IV–VI involve Owens, Lara, and Williams, each alleging neglect, poor communication or failure to refund unearned fees, with evidentiary findings of mismanagement and lack of diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weigel engaged in professional misconduct | Weigel violated multiple ORPC provisions (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.4(d)) and RGDP by neglect, misrepresentation of fees, and poor client communication. | Weigel contends the fees were earned as charged and disputes the alleged neglect or rule violations; mitigation factors apply. | Yes; findings supported misconduct under ORPC/RGDP; discipline warranted. |
| Whether Weigel failed to respond to Bar inquiries in Boyd matter | Failure to respond violated RGDP and justified discipline. | Informal complaint procedures did not require a response within two weeks; no violation. | Violation established; responsive obligation confirmed. |
| Whether flat-fee arrangements and lack of a trust account violated ethics rules | Flat fees deposited to operating account and nonrefundable terms violated trust and fee rules (Rule 1.15, 1.16). | Flat fees may be earned upon receipt and are permissible if properly contracted and reasonable. | Violation established; mismanagement of fees and failure to maintain a trust account. |
| Whether failures to communicate and complete work justified discipline | Repeated failure to inform clients and to complete requested work constitutes neglect and lack of diligence. | Some clients were difficult; efforts and time spent were reasonable; disputes over outcome. | Yes; conduct constitutes neglect and lack of diligent representation. |
| What discipline is appropriate for the sustained misconduct | Suspension for two years and one day is warranted; emphasizes disbarment-equivalent seriousness for trust/fund abuses. | Discipline should be a reprimand or minimal suspension; no prior discipline; mitigating factors present. | Two-year suspension with costs awarded; no disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Perkins, 1988 OK 65 (OK) (disbarment for trust fund misuse and related misconduct)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 2002 OK 51 (OK) (thirty-day suspension for failure to respond and neglect)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 2003 OK 80 (OK) (six-month suspension for failure to refund unearned fees and neglect; control of staff)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Stow, 1998 OK 105 (OK) (three-year suspension for conversion of client funds)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Reynolds, 2012 OK 95 (OK) (two years and one day suspension for neglect and fee issues)
- McQueen, Rains & Tresch, LLP v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 2008 OK 66 (OK) (fee contracts and reasonableness; nonrefundable retainers analysis)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Berger, 2008 OK 91 (OK) (disciplinary standards and misconduct framework)