STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEONARD
367 P.3d 498
| Okla. | 2016Background
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a 12‑count disciplinary complaint against attorney Mitchell K. Leonard alleging systemic misconduct including taking retainers, performing little or no work, misusing trust/operating accounts, failing to refund unearned fees, and poor or false communications with clients and the Bar.
- Multiple clients (12 separate grievances) paid retainers totaling several thousand dollars and alleged no filings, no accountings, and no refunds; some suffered concrete harm (e.g., loss of custody opportunities, extra payments to other counsel).
- Bar motions to deem allegations admitted were sustained after Leonard repeatedly failed to participate and respond; the PRT hearing focused largely on mitigation.
- Leonard admitted addiction to methamphetamine and alcohol, sought treatment after proceedings began, and urged probation so he could practice and repay clients; he refused to fully release medical/treatment records to the Bar.
- The Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, found clear and convincing evidence of multiple ORPC and RGDP violations, rejected Rule 10 incapacity relief (no proof of current incapacity and refusal to disclose records), and imposed disbarment effective October 6, 2014, restitution as a condition of reinstatement, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation/mismanagement of client funds and trust accounting violations | Bar: Leonard deposited client funds into operating account, wrote personal checks, allowed overdrafts, and failed to refund unearned fees | Leonard: Addiction caused lapses; seeks treatment and proposes supervised probation to repay clients | Held: Violations proven; disbarment imposed; restitution required for reinstatement |
| Failure to perform, communicate, and return client files/refunds | Bar: Multiple clients paid retainers and received little/no work, no accountings, and no refunds | Leonard: Addiction interfered with representation; now sober and can make restitution if allowed to practice under probation | Held: Failures established as ethical violations; mitigation from treatment insufficient to avoid disbarment |
| Failure to cooperate with disciplinary process and deceptive statements | Bar: Leonard failed to timely respond to grievances, misled Bar about whereabouts/treatment, and refused subpoenaed records | Leonard: Limited participation; invoked privacy regarding treatment records | Held: Noncooperation and deceptive conduct violated rules; refusal to disclose records foreclosed Rule 10 relief |
| Use of addiction as mitigation and applicability of Rule 10 (incapacity) | Bar: Even with addiction, public protection requires severe discipline; Rule 10 not met without proof of current incapacity | Leonard: Addiction and treatment justify probation/lesser sanction | Held: Rule 10 not applicable; addiction insufficient mitigation here (refusal to provide records); disbarment is the appropriate sanction to protect public |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (Okla. 1992) (addiction may mitigate when recognized and treated before proceedings)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (Supreme Court performs non-deferential de novo review in disciplinary matters)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Allford, 152 P.3d 190 (Okla. 2006) (court has exclusive jurisdiction over admission and discipline and must independently assess evidence)