STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHT
359 P.3d 1122
Okla.2015Background
- David W. Knight, admitted in Oklahoma (1982) and Texas, had his Oklahoma license suspended by this Court in a prior reciprocal-discipline opinion effective August 6, 2014 (one-year suspension). He nonetheless appeared and acted as counsel in multiple Cotton County criminal matters after that effective suspension date.
- Knight signed courtroom documents, argued in court, and negotiated pleas for clients (Brackett and Branham) without notifying the clients or the court of his suspended status; he later filed limited withdrawal motions that did not disclose suspension as the reason.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) opened a formal grievance, sought Knight’s written responses, and subpoenaed him for deposition; Knight provided an incomplete one‑page fax and failed to appear for the rescheduled deposition or otherwise fully cooperate.
- Knight did not file an answer to the OBA’s Rule 6 Complaint; the trial panel granted the Bar’s motion to deem the complaint’s allegations admitted under Rule 6.4, and received evidence solely to determine discipline.
- The Tribunal and this Court found Knight violated multiple RGDP/ORPC provisions (notably unauthorized practice, candor to tribunal, failure to notify clients/withdraw, and failure to respond to disciplinary authority), but declined to deem admitted one asserted 8.4 violation where proof of deceitful intent was lacking.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended Knight for two years and one day beginning when the opinion is final and assessed costs of $1,854.96; three justices dissented and would have disbarred him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice after suspension (ORPC 5.5 / RGDP) | Knight practiced law in Oklahoma after his suspension and thus violated Rule 5.5 and must be disciplined. | Knight claimed he reasonably (though imprecisely) believed he had a longer window (30 days) to wrap up matters after receiving the opinion and thus did not knowingly practice while suspended. | Court found Knight acted after the effective suspension date and rejected his subjective calculation as unreasonable; violations proved and discipline warranted. |
| Failure to notify clients and withdraw (RGDP Rule 9.1 / ORPC obligations) | Knight failed to notify clients by certified mail and did not timely file withdrawals, undermining client protection and rule compliance. | Knight said he attempted refunds and told clients to obtain new counsel but could not recall specifics and blamed mail/assistant issues. | Court held Knight violated Rule 9.1 (failure to notify/withdraw); this conduct supported enhanced discipline. |
| Failure to cooperate with Bar / failure to respond (ORPC 8.1(b) / RGDP 5.2) | Knight failed to provide a full response and avoided the deposition, violating duty to respond to disciplinary authority. | Knight testified to prior problems with timely responses and blamed misunderstanding and staff errors; denied bad intent. | Court deemed failure to respond admitted under Rule 6.4 and found lack of cooperation proved; punished accordingly. |
| Scope and effect of Rule 6.4 admissions and element of intent for 8.4 violations | Bar sought to have all alleged violations deemed admitted and rely on them to impose enhanced discipline. | Knight argued lack of intent and ignorance of certain rules; contested some admitted violations' elements (e.g., required mens rea for 8.4). | Court applied Rule 6.4 to deem allegations admitted but reviewed record de novo on elements needing proof (especially intent). It refused to accept admission as to an 8.4 violation tied to bad‑motive where record lacked evidence of deceit, but otherwise sustained violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 330 P.3d 1216 (Okla. 2014) (prior reciprocal-discipline opinion suspending Knight’s Oklahoma license)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed, 264 P.3d 1197 (Okla. 2011) (procedure and timing for effectiveness of disciplinary orders and trial-panel role)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger, 72 P.3d 27 (Okla. 2003) (effective date rule for suspension when petition for rehearing not timely filed)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Running, 262 P.3d 736 (Okla. 2011) (two years and one day suspension for practicing after suspension; precedent on severity)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilcox, 318 P.3d 1114 (Okla. 2014) (discussion of intent element for Rule 8.4 and limits on accepting stipulations/admissions)