STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILCOX, 318 P.3d 1114

Background

Thomas J. Wilcox, admitted 1983, had prior disciplinary history (suspension in 1997 and public reprimand/probation in 2009).
OBA brought two consolidated proceedings: SCBD 6009 (Rule 6) alleging misconduct in representing worker Darlene Love; SCBD 5775 (Rule 7) based on Wilcox's 2011 misdemeanor stalking conviction of Taunia Bozarth.
Facts re SCBD 6009: Wilcox represented Love (2003–2007); he repeatedly advanced travel funds rather than timely submitting mileage reimbursement claims to the insurer; Wilcox fell ill in 2007 and another attorney (Talbot) finished the case and discovered deficient files and practices.
Workers’ Compensation Court found Wilcox improperly advanced funds, endorsed five of Love’s TTD checks without authorization and deposited them into his mother’s account, and ordered reimbursement; appeals were pending/decided in related proceedings.
Criminal matter: Wilcox convicted of stalking the wife of a county judge, served 184 days jail and fined $1,000; conviction affirmed by Court of Criminal Appeals.
This Court reviewed the record de novo, found multiple ORPC violations and that the stalking conviction, in context of prior discipline and lack of remorse, warranted disbarment effective from his interim suspension (June 30, 2011); costs assessed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wilcox violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 (competence, diligence) by failing to timely seek insurer mileage reimbursement for Love	OBA: Wilcox failed to track/submit mileage claims, causing hardship and reflecting lack of competence/diligence	Wilcox: He advanced funds by agreement with Love and lacked time due to short notices and illness	Court: Clear and convincing evidence Wilcox violated Rules 1.1 and 1.3 (failed to seek reimbursements; poor documentation)
Whether Wilcox violated Rule 1.8(e) (financial assistance to client) by advancing travel funds	OBA: Travel advances are not litigation costs and violate 1.8(e)	Wilcox: He acted for humanitarian reasons and had informal agreement with client	Court: Violated Rule 1.8(e); prior warnings/orders should have put him on notice; humanitarian purpose not a defense (Smolen)
Whether Wilcox violated Rule 1.15 (safekeeping client funds) by endorsing/depositing client TTD checks into his mother’s account and retaining funds	OBA: He comingled/failed to safeguard funds and sought double reimbursement	Wilcox: He had client permission and claimed reimbursement right	Court: Violated Rule 1.15 — Workers’ Comp court found no valid claim; depositing into third‑party account and depletion of funds showed failure to safeguard client property
Whether Wilcox violated Rule 8.4(c) or Rule 3.3(a)(3) (dishonesty; offering known false evidence) regarding representations about payments and reimbursements	OBA: Misrepresentations to tribunal and about payments to physicians	Wilcox: Poor bookkeeping, but no intent to deceive; he believed claims were accurate	Court: OBA failed to prove intent to deceive by clear and convincing evidence for 8.4(c) and 3.3(a)(3); poor recordkeeping alone insufficient to show knowing falsehood
Whether Wilcox’s stalking conviction under 21 O.S. §1173 warranted serious discipline (Rule 7 matters)	OBA: Conviction shows lack of fitness; conduct intimidated victim (judge’s wife) and undermines respect for judiciary	Wilcox: Denied wrongdoing, disputed verdict, offered background of disputes as mitigation	Court: Conviction and context (prior misconduct toward judge/candidate, lack of remorse) show unfitness; disbarment required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilcox, 942 P.2d 205 (Okla. 1997) (prior suspension addressing trust account/handling issues)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilcox, 227 P.3d 642 (Okla. 2009) (public reprimand/probation and Rule 8.2 violation for false statements about judicial candidate)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shanbour, 84 P.3d 107 (Okla. 2003) (stalking conviction and related conduct resulted in disbarment)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smolen, 17 P.3d 456 (Okla. 2000) (Rule 1.8(e) prohibits loans for living/travel expenses; humanitarian exceptions rejected)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1990) (criminal convictions relevant when they indicate lack of characteristics necessary for practice)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 136 P.3d 590 (Okla. 2006) (Rule 8.4(c) requires intent to deceive for disciplinary violation)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 304 P.3d 453 (Okla. 2013) (interim suspension appropriate where conviction facially shows unfitness)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon, 295 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2012) (discipline protects public confidence and integrity of the bar)