STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIGEL
321 P.3d 168
| Okla. | 2014Background
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a Rule 6 proceeding against attorney John Holman Weigel alleging multiple professional misconduct counts arising from six client matters (Boyd, Whiteley, DeLeon, Owens, Lara, Williams).
- Common facts: Weigel accepted flat/advance fees, deposited client funds into his general operating account (no trust account initially), failed to communicate or perform required work, and failed to promptly refund unearned fees or account for funds.
- The Bar also alleged failure to respond timely to Bar inquiries (Boyd) and other violations of ORPC rules (1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.1, 8.4(d)) and RGDP provisions.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found clear and convincing evidence of multiple rule violations and recommended a six-month suspension; the Bar sought two years and one day, Weigel sought only a reprimand.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found violations (including misuse of client funds and failure to account), considered mitigating evidence (Weigel’s bipolar disorder, no prior discipline) but found insufficient remediation or remorse.
- The Court imposed a two-year suspension and assessed costs of $4,806.30 (reduced to exclude PRT lunch costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to respond to Bar investigation | Bar: failure to reply to informal/formal grievance notices violated RGDP/Rule 8.1 and justified discipline | Weigel: rules did not require response to an informal complaint within two weeks | Court: Failure to respond is mandatory; violation established (cites precedent) |
| Handling of advance/flat fees (trust account issue) | Bar: depositing client advance fees into operating account and spending them violated Rule 1.15 and required discipline | Weigel: flat fees were earned on receipt; not required to use trust account; relied on OBA ethics opinion | Court: advance fees must be segregated until earned; Weigel violated Rule 1.15; his reliance insufficient |
| Competence, diligence, communication (multiple client matters) | Bar: neglect, lack of communication, failure to complete work, and failure to refund unearned fees violated ORPC duties | Weigel: performed work, spent time, clients were difficult; fees reasonable and earned | Court: clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 3.2, 8.4(d); misconduct proven |
| Appropriate discipline level | Bar: suspension two years and one day (effectively long suspension requiring reinstatement) | Weigel: at most a reprimand; raised bipolar disorder as mitigation | Held: imposed two-year suspension (mitigation insufficient; misconduct pattern and failure to account warranted multi-year suspension); assessed costs (less small lunch amount) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Perkins, 765 P.2d 825 (Okla. 1988) (conversion/failure to repay client funds can warrant disbarment)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 51 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2002) (suspension for failure to account and delayed refunds; mitigating cooperation considered)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 84 P.3d 710 (Okla. 2003) (six-month suspension for mishandling client funds, lack of communication, and failure to refund unearned fees)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stow, 975 P.2d 869 (Okla. 1998) (three-year suspension for conversion and failure to account/respond)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Reynolds, 289 P.3d 1283 (Okla. 2012) (two years and one day suspension for abandonment, collecting/retaining fees for little or no service)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Young, 175 P.3d 371 (Okla. 2007) (disbarment for misuse of trust funds and serious trust-account violations)
- McQueen, Rains & Tresch, LLP v. CITGO Pet. Corp., 195 P.3d 35 (Okla. 2008) (discussion of validity and enforcement of fee agreements, nonrefundable retainer considerations)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Berger, 202 P.3d 822 (Okla. 2008) (court’s original jurisdiction in disciplinary matters and de novo review)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 240 P.3d 675 (Okla. 2010) (disability mitigation requires causal link to misconduct)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stutsman, 990 P.2d 854 (Okla. 1999) (court’s role in weighing evidence and assessing appropriate discipline)