STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOONE
367 P.3d 509
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Posey hired attorney Ronald R. Boone after a 2012 auto accident to recover medical expenses and property damage; property damage was settled but medical claim remained unresolved.
- Communication between Posey and Boone deteriorated; Boone and Posey agreed to delay filing to monitor medical condition, but Boone filed suit one day after the two-year statute of limitations expired, and the suit was dismissed.
- Posey terminated Boone, later learned from the insurer that suit had been filed and dismissed, and requested his file (which Boone delayed providing).
- OBA filed a complaint alleging violations of ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 8.4(a)&(d) (client neglect/communication) and failure to timely respond to a grievance (Rule 8.1(b) and RGDP Rules 1.3, 5.2).
- Boone stipulated to misconduct allegations but contested that the OBA lacked clear and convincing evidence he knowingly failed to respond to the OBA’s initial (regular mail) notice; he did timely respond to the certified follow-up.
- Court found clear and convincing evidence of client neglect/communication failures (Count I) but insufficient proof that Boone knowingly failed to respond to initial bar notice (Count II).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boone’s neglect and poor communication violated ORPC and warranted discipline | Posey/OBA: Boone failed to communicate, missed statute of limitations, and delayed file turnover, violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 8.4 | Boone: Admitted mistakes and remorse; claimed plan to delay filing and asserted office/staffing problems; not intentional | Held: Clear & convincing evidence of violations; suspension warranted (6 months) and supervised practice afterward |
| Whether Boone violated Rule 8.1(b)/RGDP by failing to timely respond to OBA’s grievance | OBA: Respondent ignored the April 27 regular-mail notice and thus violated response rules | Boone: Denied receiving the April 27 letter; promptly answered after certified mail follow-up | Held: Insufficient clear & convincing evidence that Boone knowingly failed to respond to the first letter; Count II not proven |
| Appropriate discipline given misconduct and prior record | OBA/PRT recommended a short suspension and probation with restitution proposals | Boone urged mitigation (remorse, cooperation, personal hardships, rehabilitation steps) | Held: Considering prior reprimands and repeated pattern, Court imposed 6‑month suspension, 12‑month supervised practice after suspension, and assessed costs |
| Whether monetary restitution to client should be ordered in disciplinary proceeding | PRT recommended restitution for medical bills and additional damages | Boone offered restitution but issue not fully litigated; concerns about due process and record support | Held: Court declined to order monetary restitution; only assessed disciplinary costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCormick, 315 P.3d 1015 (Okla. 2013) (long suspension for abandoning client, allowing statute of limitations to run, and failing to cooperate)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Loeliger, 127 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2005) (sixty-day suspension where attorney failed to file before time bar but had strong mitigation)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Giessmann, 948 P.2d 1227 (Okla. 1997) (ninety-day suspension for neglect and communication failures; prior discipline increased sanction)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Busch, 853 P.2d 194 (Okla. 1993) (ninety-day suspension plus probation where attorney failed to file and misled client; prior censure relevant)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (de novo review standard in disciplinary proceedings)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 18 (Okla. 2003) (Rule 5.2 response obligations are mandatory; failure to respond may itself warrant discipline)