STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILCOX
318 P.3d 1114
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Thomas J. Wilcox (admitted 1983) faced consolidated disciplinary proceedings: SCBD 6009 (Rule 6: alleged ORPC violations in representation of Darlene Faye Love in a workers' compensation matter) and SCBD 5775 (Rule 7: criminal conviction for misdemeanor stalking).
- Love hired Wilcox in 2003; Wilcox represented her through 2007 but suffered a stroke just before a final hearing and another attorney (Talbot) took over. Talbot reported concerns about Wilcox's handling of the file to the OBA.
- Wilcox repeatedly advanced money to Love for travel rather than timely submitting mileage/reimbursement claims to the insurer; later endorsed and deposited several of Love’s temporary total disability (TTD) checks into his mother’s account and sought reimbursement from the Workers’ Compensation Court.
- Wilcox had prior disciplinary history: suspension in 1997 for mishandling client funds and a public reprimand in 2009 for violations including making false statements about a judicial candidate (the candidate was the husband of the stalking victim).
- Criminally, Wilcox was convicted (April 1, 2011) of stalking Taunia Bozarth (wife of a Dewey County judge); conviction affirmed on appeal; Court entered immediate interim suspension June 30, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence and diligence (ORPC 1.1 & 1.3) | Wilcox failed to timely pursue insurer reimbursement and did not maintain adequate records, harming client | Wilcox said he advanced funds by agreement and lacked time because appointments were short notice; planned to seek reimbursement later | Court: Violations proven by clear and convincing evidence — failed to provide competent, diligent representation |
| Financial assistance to client (ORPC 1.8(e)) | Advancing travel funds to Love violated the rule prohibiting loans for living/travel expenses | Wilcox claimed humanitarian motive and emergency need to enable treatment | Court: Violation established; prior warning from another WC order made conduct impermissible |
| Safekeeping client funds (ORPC 1.15) | Wilcox endorsed and deposited TTD checks into mother’s account and depleted funds while entitlement was disputed | Wilcox claimed client authorized retention as reimbursement for advances | Court: Violated Rule 1.15 — WC Court found no valid claim; depositing into third-party account and depletion showed failure to safeguard funds |
| Dishonesty / offering false evidence (ORPC 8.4(c), 3.3) | OBA alleged misrepresentations to WC Court regarding payments to physicians and reimbursement | Wilcox’s poor recordkeeping; he denied intent to deceive and said he believed reimbursements were owed | Court: No clear and convincing proof of intentional deceit or knowingly offering false evidence; 8.4(c)/3.3 claims not sustained |
| Criminal conviction and fitness to practice (Rule 7 discipline) | Stalking conviction (wife of sitting judge), combined with prior ethical violations, shows unfitness; seek severe discipline | Wilcox disputed conviction's fairness, denied stalking, offered limited mitigation (personal animosities) | Court: Disbarment ordered (effective from June 30, 2011 interim suspension); lack of remorse and pattern of misconduct justified disbarment; costs imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilcox, 942 P.2d 205 (Okla. 1997) (prior suspension for commingling/mishandling client funds)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilcox, 227 P.3d 642 (Okla. 2009) (public reprimand and discipline for ORPC violations including false statements about a judicial candidate)
- 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 not permitted)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shanbour, 84 P.3d 107 (Okla. 2003) (stalking conviction and related misconduct can warrant disbarment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1990) (criminal convictions relevant to discipline only if they indicate unfitness: violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or interference with administration of justice)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (Okla. 2005) (Court's supervisory role and standard for lawyer discipline)