STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MANSFIELD
350 P.3d 108
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Christopher I. Mansfield, an Oklahoma lawyer (admitted 2005), served as special administrator, successor trustee, and later personal representative for the Estate/Trust of Elizabeth S. Cox; he also performed legal work for the estate.
- Between May and December 2011 Mansfield transferred approximately $45,749.98 from the estate account to his personal account without prior court approval or notice to heirs; he spent the funds on personal obligations.
- At an August 2012 mediation Mansfield agreed to a reduced fee of $27,500 but did not disclose the prior transfers; he later reimbursed $18,249.98 to reconcile the agreed fee with amounts already withdrawn and filed an update with the probate court stating the over-withdrawal had been refunded.
- On November 21, 2012 Mansfield filed a Final Report and Final Account that misrepresented available estate funds and failed to disclose prior withdrawals; he also altered a Seller’s Statement (inflating property maintenance charges) and delivered it to heirs’ counsel to conceal the withdrawals.
- The OBA charged Mansfield with violations of multiple ORPC rules and RGDP; the PRT found violations of Rule 3.3, Rule 8.4(c) and (d), and RGDP Rule 1.3 and recommended an 18-month suspension.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court, reviewing de novo, concluded Mansfield committed commingling and simple conversion (Rule 1.15), knowingly made a false statement to a tribunal (Rule 3.3), altered documents with intent to deceive (Rule 8.4(c)), and engaged in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)); it imposed an 18‑month suspension and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mansfield unlawfully removed estate funds without court approval | OBA: Mansfield diverted >$45,000 to personal use without notice or court approval, violating fiduciary/probate law and Rule 1.15 | Mansfield: Transfers represented earned legal/statutory fees and he intended to seek court approval later; personal crises explain conduct | Held: Transfers amounted to commingling and simple conversion in violation of Rule 1.15; not proven to be misappropriation (no clear intent to permanently deprive) |
| Whether filing the First Final Report constituted a false statement to the tribunal (Rule 3.3) | OBA: Report misrepresented available funds and omitted prior withdrawals, so it was knowingly false | Mansfield: Does not dispute error but contests characterization/extent | Held: Mansfield knowingly made a false statement to the tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a) |
| Whether Mansfield’s alteration of the Seller’s Statement violated Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty) | OBA: He falsified the Seller’s Statement to conceal withdrawals; this showed intent to deceive | Mansfield: Admitted altering the statement and later tried to remedy; claimed panic/mitigation | Held: Clear intent to deceive shown; violated Rule 8.4(c) |
| Whether alteration and concealment amounted to conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) | OBA: Falsifying documents and misleading heirs/counsel interfered with estate administration and increased litigation and costs | Mansfield: Argues mitigation, prompt partial reimbursement, and cooperation reduce culpability | Held: Alteration and deceit were serious and prejudicial; violated Rule 8.4(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Combs, 175 P.3d 340 (Okla. 2007) (distinguishes commingling/simple conversion from misappropriation; misappropriation mandates disbarment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 136 P.3d 590 (Okla. 2006) (payment to self from estate without court approval is commingling; court approval required for fees)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Keeran, 495 P.2d 399 (Okla. 1972) (prepayment of estate fees without court approval constitutes improper commingling; suspension imposed)
- Estate of Bartlett, 680 P.2d 369 (Okla. 1984) (attorney fees are subject to probate court discretion and approval)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moore, 741 P.2d 445 (Okla. 1987) (misappropriation of estate funds and related fraud supports disbarment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Layton, 324 P.3d 1244 (Okla. 2014) (under Rule 3.3(a) actual knowledge of a false statement is sufficient to establish violation)