STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRADLEY
2014 OK 78
Okla.2014Background
- OBA filed a two-count disciplinaryComplaint against Bradley under RGDP Rule 6 for alleged professional misconduct.
- Bradley allegedly failed to diligently represent Harrill, failed to communicate, and failed to refund unearned fees in Harrill’s divorce matter (Count I).
- Bradley allegedly failed to respond to the OBA’s inquiries and formal complaints in Harrill’s and Keiser’s grievances (Count I and II).
- Keiser’s grievance claimed inadequate service and an unaccounted retainer; the DHS matter was also involved.
- Bradley had two prior private reprimands for neglect and failure to respond to grievances prior to Harrill, indicating a pattern of misconduct.
- Trial Panel recommended a deferred suspension with conditions; the Court ultimately imposed an eighteen-month suspension and costs order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bradley violated applicable ethical and disciplinary rules | OBA contends Bradley violated ORPC Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and RGDP Rule 5.2 | Bradley admits some Rule 5.2 violations; otherwise disputes scope and sufficiency | Bradley violated multiple rules; discipline warranted beyond deferment |
| Whether Bradley’s failure to respond to grievances supports discipline | OBA shows repeated nonresponses harmed enforcement and client trust | Bradley attributes delays to health and fear of license loss | Yes; nonresponse supported disciplinary action |
| Whether mismanagement of flat fee and lack of fee transparency justified discipline | OBA proved failure to communicate scope and fee basis (Rule 1.5) and failure to provide accounting | Bradley later offered refunds; mitigation attempted but insufficient | Yes; supports disciplinary action and suspension |
| Appropriate discipline for Bradley’s misconduct | McCormick-like pattern of misconduct warrants meaningful discipline | Trial Panel suggested deferred suspension; Bradley’s conduct merited more | Court suspended Bradley for eighteen months (not deferred) and ordered costs |
| Whether prior private reprimands impact current discipline | Previous reprimands indicate replicable pattern of neglect and nonresponse | Mitigating health issues offered as context | Court considered prior reprimands and imposed substantial discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rowe, 2012 OK 88, 288 P.3d 585 (OK Supreme Court (2012)) (disbarment for multiple misconduct and failure to respond to grievances)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Edwards, 2011 OK 8, 248 P.3d 350 (OK Supreme Court (2011)) (suspension for professional misconduct including failure to respond)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Haave, 2012 OK 92, 290 P.3d 747 (OK Supreme Court (2012)) (emphasizes prompt and adequate response to allegations)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 522 (OK Supreme Court (2010)) (veterinarian of bar discipline: respond and engage with proceedings)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. McCormick, 2013 OK 110, 315 P.3d 1015 (OK Supreme Court (2013)) (suspension for similar misconduct and failure to respond; informs severity)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Todd, 1992 OK 81, 833 P.2d 260 (OK Supreme Court (1992)) (de novo review; advisory Trial Panel guidance)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Bellamy, 2012 OK 20, 273 P.3d 56 (OK Supreme Court (2012)) (discusses scope of review and public protection)