STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEMOPOLOS
2015 OK 50
| Okla. | 2015Background
- Respondent James M. Demopolos, a licensed Oklahoma attorney, pled guilty to three misdemeanors after a criminal Information; one count was dismissed.
- District Court deferred its two-year sentence to January 2017 and ordered fines, DOC supervision, and Batterers Intervention Program with testing.
- Oklahoma Bar Association sought immediate interim suspension and later a final discipline proceeding under Rule 7 RGDP; interim suspension occurred February 2, 2015.
- This Court conducted de novo review of the record, including mitigation evidence, to determine if misconduct occurred and the appropriate discipline.
- Convictions for violent domestic abuse and related conduct were found to demonstrate unfitness to practice law; the Court imposed a one-year immediate suspension followed by a one-year deferred suspension conditioned on seven probationary requirements.
- The order includes continuing monitoring and potential immediate interim suspension if deferred-suspension conditions are violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty plea shows unfitness to practice law and supports discipline | Bar: unfitness proven by violent domestic abuse | Demopolos: mitigation evidence may lessen discipline | Yes; unfitness shown and discipline imposed |
| Whether the combination of immediate suspension and deferred suspension is appropriate | Bar: two-year severity warranted | Respondent: shorter suspension with conditions | Yes; one-year immediate suspension plus one-year deferred suspension with conditions |
| What mitigation factors justify the chosen discipline | Bar: limited prior discipline weighs against leniency | Respondent: sobriety efforts and treatment mitigate | Mitigation supports suspended-plus-deferred discipline rather than disbarment |
| Whether due process was satisfied in implementing deferred suspension | Bar: proper notice and procedures followed | Respondent: adequate opportunity to object | Yes; due process satisfied with notice and conditional implementation |
| Whether costs should be assessed against Respondent | Bar sought costs | Respondent bears costs | Costs assessed against Respondent |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Zannotti, 330 P.3d 11 (2014 OK 25) (two-year suspension after violent misconduct; mitigation factors weighed)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (2014 OK 103) (pattern of abuse; two years and one day suspension with consideration of treatment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Soderstrom, 321 P.3d 159 (2013 OK 101) (consideration of sobriety and treatment in mitigation)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Iams, 338 P.3d 639 (2014 OK 93) (mitigation dependent on change post-treatment; sobriety emphasized)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilcox, 318 P.3d 1114 (2014 OK 1) (discipline considerations; adherence to treatment and lack of prior discipline)