STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZANNOTTI, 326 P.3d 496

Background

Respondent Mark Zannotti, a practicing attorney, began a sexual relationship with client J.D. while representing her in a divorce; he withdrew as counsel shortly after the relationship began.
On October 26, 2011, an incident at J.D.’s home resulted in physical injuries to J.D., destruction of her cell phone, and a protective order; criminal charges for domestic assault and malicious injury to property followed.
Respondent pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor charges; the criminal court deferred judgment and sentence for two years.
The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed a disciplinary complaint; parties stipulated facts and recommended public censure with probation, but the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found violations and recommended a public reprimand with probation.
The Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found Respondent violated ORPC Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3 (and noted an unpled violation of ORPC Rule 1.8(j)), and imposed a two-year suspension, subject to reconsideration if criminal sentencing is accelerated.
The Court also addressed procedural issues: the district clerk and OBA failed to file the deferred-judgment documents under RGDP Rule 7.2, prompting the Court to direct OBA to timely furnish such documents in future cases; the OBA’s motion for costs was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Respondent violated professional conduct rules by committing domestic violence and related acts	OBA: Respondent’s nolo plea and underlying facts demonstrate violation of ORPC Rule 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 1.3 (conduct bringing discredit on the profession)	Zannotti: Stipulated facts but limited admissions; argued remorse, mitigation, and sought only public reprimand and probation	Court: Violations proven; conduct shows unfitness to practice and disrepute to the profession; suspension warranted
Whether a sexual relationship with a client (or recent client) violated ORPC Rule 1.8(j) and may be considered	OBA: Relationship with a client supports ethical violation and is aggravating	Zannotti: Prior withdrawal from representation; relationship dispute and mitigation	Court: Evidence shows Rule 1.8(j) violation, but OBA did not plead it; due process prevents disciplining on uncharged rule, though the Court may consider it for sentencing purposes
Proper disciplinary rule/procedure given deferred criminal judgment not filed with Chief Justice under RGDP Rule 7.2	OBA: Proceeded under RGDP Rule 6 because Rule 7 filings were not made	Zannotti: Proceeding under Rule 6 with stipulated mitigation sought lenient sanction	Court: Although filed under Rule 6, Court will not allow circumvention of Rule 7; imposes suspension consistent with Rule 7 discipline and directs OBA to timely file Rule 7.2 documents in future
Appropriate discipline (public reprimand v. suspension)	OBA & Respondent: Requested public censure and probation	Dissenters (some Justices): favored different treatment; trial judge deferred sentencing for two years for public safety	Court: Two-year suspension from practice of law (subject to reconsideration if criminal judgment/sentence is accelerated)

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (Okla. 1992) (de novo review and Court not bound by PRT findings)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 870 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1994) (criminal characterization does not control disciplinary outcome; violent acts show unfitness)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Corrales, 280 P.3d 968 (Okla. 2012) (discipline comparison for assault/battery convictions)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Casey, 295 P.3d 1096 (Okla. 2012) (warning about relying on clerks’ failure to file Rule 7 documents)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (discussing Rule 7 procedural requirements and prior admonitions)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Golden, 201 P.3d 862 (Okla. 2008) (discipline’s deterrent purpose)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shofner, 60 P.3d 1024 (Okla. 2002) (limited value of character witnesses in bar proceedings)