STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. OLIVER
2016 OK 37
| Okla. | 2016Background
- James Edward Oliver, admitted 1967, long-time bankruptcy practitioner with no prior discipline; suspended by U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma multiple times (Oct. 29, 2014; Jan. 14, 2015) and permanently suspended June 15, 2015.
- Rule 7.7(a) (Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings) requires Oklahoma lawyers to notify the Bar General Counsel of discipline imposed in another jurisdiction within 20 days; Oliver failed to notify the OBA of the federal suspensions.
- The OBA initiated reciprocal-discipline proceedings; Oliver requested a hearing and submitted the bankruptcy-court transcript and orders as prima facie proof of misconduct under Rule 7.7(b).
- At the OBA hearing, evidence showed Oliver’s primary problem was technological proficiency and electronic-filing errors rather than substantive bankruptcy-law ignorance; he acknowledged computer/filing deficiencies and did not deliberately conceal suspensions.
- Bankruptcy judge had ordered Oliver to resubmit nine error-free documents and to associate with a bankruptcy attorney; the bankruptcy court found Oliver violated its order by obtaining assistance, resulting in permanent suspension; the OBA panel found no clear evidence Oliver intended improper ghostwriting.
- The OBA trial panel recommended public censure; the Court agreed and publicly censured Oliver and assessed costs ($1,817.47). A dissent argued the misconduct and lack of candor warranted a multi-year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to notify the OBA of out-of-jurisdiction discipline (Rule 7.7) | OBA: Oliver violated Rule 7.7 by not notifying General Counsel of federal suspensions | Oliver: Oversight due to ignorance; no deliberate concealment | Held: Clear and convincing evidence of failure to report; no deliberate concealment; discipline warranted (public censure) |
| Whether federal-court discipline mandates reciprocal discipline in Oklahoma | OBA: Federal discipline and failure to report justify disciplinary sanction here | Oliver: Bankruptcy problems were technological, not substantive misconduct; transcript may mitigate reciprocal effect | Held: Federal disciplinary documents are prima facie evidence; respondent may present mitigation; court imposed discipline short of suspension |
| Allegation that Oliver procured ghostwriting/violated bankruptcy order | OBA: Bankruptcy court concluded Oliver obtained improper assistance contrary to its order | Oliver: He hired an attorney to review and assist, who testified he did not ghost-write and Oliver did the work; any assistance complied with the bankruptcy order’s second paragraph | Held: OBA did not prove intent to have another attorney ghost-write; tribunal found evidence did not support discipline on that basis |
| Appropriate sanction for failure to report and client-notice delays | OBA prosecution: sanction range public censure to six-month suspension; panel recommended public censure | Oliver: Mitigating factors — no prior discipline, no concealment, technological difficulties, remedial steps | Held: Public censure (with costs) is appropriate given lack of deliberate concealment and mitigating factors; dissent would impose longer suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Gentry, 80 P.3d 135 (Okla. 2003) (public censure appropriate where no deliberate concealment of out-of-jurisdiction discipline)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Friesen, 350 P.3d 1269 (Okla. 2015) (disciplinary review considers lawyer fitness to protect public and courts)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Layton, 324 P.3d 1244 (Okla. 2014) (disciplinary proceedings assess continued competence and safeguarding public interests)