STATE ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HART
339 P.3d 895
Okla.2014Background
- Hart was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association on October 2, 2001.
- OBA sought discipline after certified records showing Hart’s deferred sentences in three criminal actions.
- Criminal Case CF-2013-2533 (Tulsa) charged Hart with six counts; he pled nolo contendere January 28, 2014, with sentencing deferred to 2017.
- Pawnee County CM-2013-129 charged Hart with four counts of violating a protective order; Hart pleaded guilty January 28, 2014, with a one-year deferred sentence.
- Tulsa CM-2013-4773 charged Hart with one misdemeanor for violating a protective order; he pled guilty February 18, 2014, with a three-year deferral concurrent with CF-2013-2533.
- OBA issued an interim suspension May 5, 2014; Hart did not respond; OBA recommended suspension for two years and one day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hart’s deferred sentences show unfitness to practice law. | Hart’s multiple criminal acts, including felonies, indicate unfitness. | Hart argues no automatic unfitness from deferred sentences. | Yes; the acts show unfitness under RGDP Rule 7 and ORPC 8.4(b). |
| Whether Hart’s conduct violates ORPC 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 7. | Hart’s pattern of criminal behavior reflects dishonesty and indifference to the rule of law. | Hart disputes that his acts reflect unfitness or dishonesty in practice. | Hart’s guilty pleas and pattern of offenses support violations of ORPC 8.4(b) and RGDP Rule 7. |
| What discipline is appropriate for Hart given the record? | Suspension of two years and one day is appropriate. | Hart argues for lesser discipline or no action. | Suspension for two years and one day. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (criminal acts reflect on fitness under ORPC 8.4(b))
- Bernhardt, 323 P.3d 222 (Okla. 2014) (felony or deferred sentence not automatic disqualification; pattern matters)
- Zannotti, 330 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2014) (serious breach of ethical duty; 8.4(b) violation from domestic assault case)
- Wilcox, 318 P.3d 1114 (Okla. 2014) (conviction for stalking reflects lack of respect for judiciary)
- Aston, 81 P.3d 676 (Okla. 2003) (fitness to practice includes more than absence of client harm; involves law-related conduct)
- Thompson, 194 P.3d 1281 (Okla. 2008) (criminal conduct could undermine public confidence in judiciary and bar)