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

Background

Jay Eric Trenary, admitted 1995, had prior public-service work; later opened private practice and experienced personal problems including multiple domestic incidents and substance issues.
Multiple arrests (2010–2013), including convictions/deferred pleas for obstructing an officer and disturbing the peace; OBA initiated summary Rule 7 proceedings based on a deferred-sentence plea and Rule 6 proceedings for client-grievances.
Rule 6 allegations: two client matters (Foster and Martin) where Trenary missed court, failed to communicate, did not maintain client trust account, failed to return unearned fees ($2,500 and $1,450), and refused to respond to OBA inquiries.
Trenary failed to answer the Rule 6 complaint; PRT deemed allegations admitted and heard mitigation only.
PRT recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension; the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo and disbarred Trenary, ordered restitution and costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether criminal conduct (deferred plea for obstructing officer/disturbing peace) warrants professional discipline under Rule 7/ORPC 8.4	OBA: Deferred plea demonstrates unfitness; conduct (resisting, belligerence) reflects adversely on fitness to practice	Trenary: Arrests were unlawful; disputes facts and emphasizes personal issues and treatment	Court: Conduct reflects serious interference with administration of justice and, with pattern of arrests, establishes professional misconduct under Rule 8.4; Rule 7 appropriate
Whether client neglect, failure to communicate, and handling of fees violate ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15	OBA: Clear and convincing evidence that Trenary neglected matters, failed to communicate, mismanaged client funds and kept unearned fees	Trenary: Claims he earned fees and disputes entitlement to refunds; offered limited mitigation	Court: Allegations deemed admitted; evidence shows violations of cited rules; restitution ordered to clients
Whether failure to answer OBA complaints and participate in proceedings is aggravating	OBA: Non-response justifies deeming allegations admitted and shows disregard for disciplinary process	Trenary: Offered minimal or shifting explanations, blamed others, asserted partial responsibility	Court: Failure to respond and lack of remorse are aggravating; contributed to severity of discipline
Appropriate discipline (suspension v. disbarment)	OBA: Suspension >1 year recommended; PRT: 2 years + 1 day suspension and restitution	Trenary: Requested leniency (9–18 months)	Court: Disbarment is warranted to protect public confidence given pattern of misconduct, failure to remediate, and lack of credible mitigation; costs and restitution imposed

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stewart, 71 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2003) (discipline aims to protect public and profession)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 18 (Okla. 2003) (Court has exclusive original jurisdiction and reviews disciplinary matters de novo)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 163 P.3d 527 (Okla. 2007) (purpose of discipline: safeguard public, courts, profession)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (Okla. 2009) (OBA must prove misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; evaluate credibility of stipulations)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Hart, 339 P.3d 895 (Okla. 2014) (use of 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 and charges is aggravating and shows disregard for the Court's authority)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Cox, 257 P.3d 1005 (Okla. 2011) (de novo review standard reaffirmed)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 833 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1992) (Court’s ultimate responsibility to decide misconduct and discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Haave, 290 P.3d 747 (Okla. 2012) (attorney's failure to respond to grievances relevant to discipline)