STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL
2014 OK 4
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Bar filed an amended formal complaint August 21, 2012 against John H. Weigel alleging six counts of professional misconduct under ORPC and RGDP.
- Counts arise from six grievances: Boyd (failure to respond), Whiteley (unearned flat fee, lack of trust accounting, neglect), DeLeon (nonrefundable flat fee, poor communication, misdelivery of documents), Owens (failure to file order, miscommunication), Lara (untimely filing, unearned fee, poor communication), Williams (untimely refunds, failed communication).
- Respondent denied misconduct; Joint Stipulations existed but respondent disputed the stipulated conduct.
- PRT found clear and convincing evidence of multiple Rule 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 8.2, 8.4(d) violations and RGDP Rules 1.3, 5.2; Bar sought suspension; Weigel contended at most reprimand.
- Court conducted de novo review as licensing court and suspended respondent for two years, ordering costs.
- Dissent would have imposed two years and one day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bar proved professional misconduct by failure to respond to grievances. | Bar prevailed on failure-to-respond counts. | Weigel argues no disciplinary violation for informal resistance. | Yes; failure to respond supported discipline. |
| Whether flat-fee agreements and lack of trust accounting violated ORPC. | Flat fees deposited in operating account violated 1.15; earned upon receipt contested. | Fees earned upon payment; no trust account required per contract. | Yes; misused client funds and failed to account. |
| Appropriate discipline for the multiple violations. | Suspension or disbarment warranted given pattern of neglect and misuse. | Discipline should be minimal, up to reprimand. | Two-year suspension and costs awarded. |
| Mitigating factors and their impact on discipline. | No mitigating factors properly demonstrated; pattern of harm sustained. | Bipolar disorder offered but not causative; minimal remorse shown. | Discipline remains two-year suspension; limited mitigation considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Perkins, 1988 OK 65 (Okla. 1988) (disbarment for trust fund misuses and failure to repay unearned fees)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 84 P.3d 710 (Okla. 2003) (six-month suspension for related trust/communication failures)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 51 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2002) (thirty-day suspension for failure to respond and misallocation of fees)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stow, 975 P.2d 869 (Okla. 1998) (three-year suspension for conversion of client funds and neglect)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Reynolds, 289 P.3d 1283 (Okla. 2012) (two years and one day suspension for neglect and failure to respond)
- McQueen, Rains & Tresch, LLP v. CITGO Pet. Corp., 195 P.3d 35 (Okla. 2008) (analysis of nonrefundable fees and reasonableness criteria under Rule 1.5)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Young, 175 P.3d 371 (Okla. 2007) (disbarment for trust fund misuse and failure to refund unearned fees)