STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. TRENARY, 2016 OK 8

Background

Jay Eric Trenary, admitted 1995, had a career in public service then private practice; began experiencing personal and substance issues after 2010 that affected representation and behavior.
Multiple arrests between 2010–2013 including convictions/deferred sentence for obstructing an officer and disturbing the peace (April 2012 incident prompted Rule 7 summary discipline and interim suspension).
OBA initiated parallel Rule 7 (criminal conviction/deferred plea) and Rule 6 (client grievances) proceedings; Trenary failed to answer the Rule 6 complaint and defaulted to admissions on those allegations.
Two client matters: Foster paid $5,000 in retainers (only limited work; no accounting; $2,500 unreturned); Martin paid $1,450 and Trenary failed to appear, communicate, or refund unearned fees.
Professional misconduct findings: violations of ORPC Rules 8.4 (criminal acts reflecting on fitness), 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15 and RGDP rules; PRT recommended suspension for two years and one day, but the Court ordered disbarment and restitution totaling $3,950 plus costs.

Issues

Issue	OBA's Argument	Trenary's Argument	Held
Whether Trenary's criminal conduct (deferred plea/conviction for obstructing officer/disturbing peace) demonstrates unfitness to practice under Rule 7 / ORPC 8.4	Criminal conviction and on-scene resistance reflect willful indifference to law and serious interference with administration of justice warrant discipline	Arrest was unlawful; he disputed facts and continued to contest the officers' actions	Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of misconduct under Rule 8.4 and Rule 7 and concluded the pattern of arrests shows unfitness to practice
Whether Trenary committed client-related misconduct (neglect, lack of communication, misappropriation of client funds, unreasonable fees) in Foster and Martin matters	Failure to communicate, failure to safeguard client funds, refusal to return unearned fees, unreasonable fees — and no answer to complaint — establish violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15	Trenary disputed that fees were unearned and asserted personal crises and mitigation; he offered little documentary proof	With allegations deemed admitted, the Court found clear-and-convincing violations and ordered restitution ($2,500 to Fosters, $1,450 to Martin)
Whether mitigation (personal issues, counseling, awards for prior public service) reduces discipline	OBA acknowledged past public service but emphasized pattern of misconduct and noncooperation; mitigation limited without corroboration	Trenary cited difficult transition to private practice, family/health stresses, counseling, and prior public-service awards	Court found mitigation unsupported or uncorroborated, noted lack of remorse, failure to respond to OBA, and deflecting blame; mitigation did not outweigh misconduct
Appropriate discipline: suspension vs disbarment	OBA requested suspension >1 year; PRT recommended two years + one day; OBA argued public protection and deterrence justify long suspension	Trenary requested leniency (9–18 months suspension) and urged rehabilitation opportunity	Court held that disbarment was necessary to protect public confidence and the profession; ordered disbarment, costs, and restitution; three-justice concurrence would have followed PRT suspension recommendation

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stewart, 71 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2003) (law license held for public benefit; discipline focuses on public protection)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 163 P.3d 527 (Okla. 2007) (discipline aimed at safeguarding public, courts, and profession)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 18 (Okla. 2003) (Court has ultimate responsibility for discipline; consider deterrence)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Cox, 257 P.3d 1005 (Okla. 2011) (de novo review of PRT disciplinary findings)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (Okla. 2009) (OBA must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; admissions must be supported)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Hart, 339 P.3d 895 (Okla. 2014) (Rule 7 summary proceedings explained)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Bradley, 338 P.3d 629 (Okla. 2014) (failure to respond to grievances/charges shows disregard for court authority and license)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Haave, 290 P.3d 747 (Okla. 2012) (disciplinary respondents must respond to proceedings; failure is aggravating)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 833 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1992) (ultimate responsibility for discipline rests with the Court)