352 P.3d 1210
Okla.2015Background
- James M. Demopolos, an Oklahoma lawyer, pled guilty to three misdemeanors: obstructing a public officer, threatening violence, and domestic abuse assault and battery arising from an alcohol-fueled incident with his wife. One charge (bribing officers) was dismissed.
- The district court deferred a two-year sentence, ordered fines, supervision by the Department of Corrections, and completion of a 52-week Batterers Intervention Program with substance testing.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated a Rule 7 disciplinary proceeding; the Court issued an interim suspension (Feb 2, 2015) and afforded a mitigation hearing before a Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) panel.
- At mitigation, evidence showed lengthy law practice without prior discipline, recent residential sobriety under one year, participation in treatment/AA/Lawyers Helping Lawyers, two short relapses, and the victim-wife’s support and reconciliation.
- The PRT recommended a six-month suspension plus a two-year-and-one-day deferred suspension with conditions (including sobriety, AA, mentorship, random testing). The Bar sought a two-year suspension.
- The Supreme Court imposed a one-year immediate suspension (retroactive to Feb 2, 2015) and an additional one-year deferred suspension (through Feb 3, 2017) conditioned on compliance with specified treatment/monitoring terms; costs of $1,251.80 were assessed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Demopolos’ guilty pleas demonstrate unfitness to practice law | Bar: Domestic violence & threats reflect unfitness and warrant significant suspension | Demopolos: Mitigation (treatment, sobriety efforts, no prior discipline) supports lighter or no final suspension | Guilty pleas are conclusive under Rule 7.2; conviction for domestic violence demonstrates unfitness and merits discipline |
| Appropriate length/type of discipline | Bar: Two-year suspension (to protect public and reflect seriousness) | Demopolos: Request to lift interim suspension or accept panel’s shorter recommendation | Court imposed one-year immediate suspension plus one-year deferred suspension with conditions (compromise between Bar and panel) |
| Role of mitigation evidence (treatment, sobriety, victim’s support) | Bar: While mitigation considered, recent sobriety is limited so substantial discipline still needed | Demopolos: Treatment participation, AA, and family support show rehabilitation and reduced risk | Court considered mitigation favorably but found sobriety period too short for full mitigation; imposed conditions and monitoring instead of longer suspension |
| Procedure for implementing deferred suspension upon violation | Bar: Should be able to implement deferred suspension upon proof of violation | Demopolos: Entitled to due process before implementation | Court requires General Counsel to notify Court of violation; Court will issue interim implementation effective on violation date but give respondent opportunity to show cause/contest before final order |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (domestic violence convictions demonstrate unfitness; significant suspension appropriate)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Zannotti, 330 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2014) (two-year suspension following deferred criminal sentence where public safety required prolonged supervision)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Soderstrom, 321 P.3d 159 (Okla. 2013) (extended suspension where substance relapses indicated impaired fitness)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Ijams, 338 P.3d 639 (Okla. 2014) (suspension tied to length of deferred criminal sentence; Court may suspend until completion)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilcox, 318 P.3d 1114 (Okla. 2014) (post-conviction mitigation review and consideration of overall conduct when setting discipline)