STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LAYTON, 324 P.3d 1244

Bar Association alleged Layton lied to the court about speaking with a witness (Antral Miller) before trial and failed to disclose inconsistencies between Miller's testimony and prior police statements, violating ORPC 3.3, 3.8, 8.4 and GPD Rule 1.8.
Miller testified inconsistently with a prior police report; defense counsel objected to disclosure that Miller would testify this way; bench conference occurred but was not transcribed.
Trial court did not record bench/chamber conferences; after Miller's testimony, the judge stated the State had not met with him prior to trial; Layton later argued she did not know Miller would testify as he did.
The trial ended with acquittals of all defendants; Bar filed disciplinary complaint in 2013; PRT concluded no clear and convincing evidence of violations of 3.8 but found violations of 3.3 and 8.4 and recommended public censure and costs.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review and ultimately dismissed the Bar's case, exonerated Layton, and denied costs, finding no discipline warranted given the chaotic trial and lack of clear evidence of intentional deceit.
Dissenting judge argues for discipline, including suspension, emphasizing that Layton lied to the court and should be held accountable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Layton violate candor rules to the court?	Layton allegedly lied about speaking with Miller.	Misunderstanding and chaotic circumstances excused the misstatement; no intent to deceive.	No discipline; record shows no clear, proven intent to deceive.
Was there clear and convincing evidence of misconduct under Rules 3.3, 3.8, and 8.4?	Evidence showed misleading statements to the court and mismanagement of disclosures.	Circumstances and lack of transcribed records undermine showing knowling violations; mitigating factors present.	Discipline not warranted; charges dismissed; exoneration affirmed.
What is the appropriate discipline for the alleged misconduct?	Public discipline consistent with similar cases is warranted.	Discipline would not serve justice given trial chaos and lack of intent.	Bar disciplinary proceeding dismissed; no discipline; costs denied.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91, 868 P.2d 1136 (OK Supreme Court (1993)) (violation of the rules does not require proof of bad intent)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Krug, 2004 OK 28, 92 P.3d 67 (OK Supreme Court (2004)) (false statement to a tribunal requires knowingly making the false statement)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 2013 OK 49, 309 P.3d 108 (OK Supreme Court (2013)) (recent prosecutorial misconduct involving multiple counts)