STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. OFFILL, 2014 OK 27

Respondent Phillip W. Offill, Jr. was suspended from practice of law on November 22, 2010, based on federal convictions for nine counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy related to securities violations.
The federal sentences were ninety-six months per wire fraud count and sixty months for the conspiracy count, all to be served concurrently.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals affirmed the convictions; the Supreme Court denied certiorari, making the conviction final for purposes of final discipline.
On November 19, 2013, the Oklahoma Bar Association moved for a final order of discipline and issued a show-cause to Offill, inviting a hearing, mitigation, or brief; he did not respond.
Offill has not appeared, responded, or offered any mitigation or explanation in these disciplinary proceedings (default).
The Court determined, after due process analysis and review of the record, that disbarment is the appropriate final discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was due process satisfied?	Bar Association asserts proper notice and opportunity to be heard.	Offill did not participate or respond; no mitigating evidence offered.	Yes, due process satisfied.
Does final conviction support disbarment under Rule 8.4?	Conviction shows dishonesty and misconduct rendering him unfit to practice law.	Not presented; no mitigation or defense offered.	Disbarment supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Is disbarment the appropriate final discipline given lack of mitigation and Respondent's default?	Disbarment serves public welfare and bar integrity, especially when there is active deceit and no response.	—	Disbarment appropriate final discipline.

STATE ex rel OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. SHOFNER, 60 P.3d 1024 (Okla. 2002) (disbarment appropriate final discipline; active deceit emphasized)
STATE ex rel OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WHITEBOOK, 242 P.3d 517 (Okla. 2010) (due process and notice considerations in disciplinary actions)