376 P.3d 232
Okla.2016Background
- Respondent Glenn Mirando, an Oklahoma attorney, faced a Bar complaint alleging eight client grievances (later amended to ten) for failures to communicate, diligence lapses, and unearned fees; he also failed to respond to Bar inquiries as required by RGDP Rule 5.2.
- Several former clients testified that Mirando missed court dates, failed to file pleadings, did not return files or fees, and left clients to resolve matters themselves; fees paid ranged from a few hundred to several thousand dollars.
- Mirando previously received a private reprimand in 2011 for similar client-neglect and Bar nonresponse; the Bar pleaded that prior discipline to seek enhancement.
- After the PRT hearing Mirando did not respond to two additional grievances; the Court ordered him to respond and deemed those facts admitted when he failed to do so.
- The record includes a district-court surcharge order finding Mirando personally liable for approximately $492,286 related to missing funds of his Ward, Susan Wiemar; Mirando failed to account for these funds and did not respond to the Court’s order.
- The PRT found violations and recommended one-year suspension and training; the Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found multiple ethics violations, declined to find lack of competence, and imposed a two-year-and-one-day suspension plus costs and supervisory/accounting conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OBA) | Defendant's Argument (Mirando) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mirando violated duties of diligence and communication (ORPC 1.3, 1.4) | Repeated client complaints and Bar contacts show ongoing failure to communicate and act diligently | Admitted some delays but contended he did substantial work and court appearances; blamed busy practice and fear/procrastination | Clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4; proven |
| Whether Mirando charged/retained unearned fees (ORPC 1.5) | Clients paid flat fees and alleged fees unearned and not returned; record-keeping poor | Claimed he earned portions of fees in some matters; lacked records to prove otherwise | Violations of Rule 1.5 proven in multiple matters (fees unearned or disputed) |
| Whether Mirando failed to respond to Bar investigations (RGDP 5.2) | He ignored repeated Bar notices, extending the pattern of noncommunication | Offered explanation of fear/procrastination; testified at PRT but otherwise did not timely respond | Violation of RGDP Rule 5.2 established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Mirando lacked competence (ORPC 1.1) | Bar alleged general misconduct including competence issues | Mirando argued competence, especially in courtroom practice; Bar conceded competence in many respects | Court found no clear-and-convincing evidence of lack of competence; Rule 1.1 not violated |
| Whether trust-account / misappropriation claims (ORPC 1.15) could be adjudicated | Bar later raised Ward-funds allegations suggesting misappropriation and failure to maintain proper accounts | Mirando did not contest supplement and failed to respond to Court order to explain | Complaint did not originally plead Rule 1.15; Court declined to discipline under 1.15 for lack of notice but ordered Mirando to account for Ward funds and made accounting a condition of discipline/reinstatement |
| Appropriate discipline given prior reprimand and pattern | Bar sought 2 years + 1 day suspension and costs due to repeat misconduct and lack of remediation | Mirando offered mitigation (sobriety history, previous service) but presented little evidentiary mitigation at PRT | Court imposed suspension for two years and one day, costs, required supervision, accounting for Ward funds, compliance with RGDP Rule 9.1, and reimbursement obligations under Rule 11.1(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. OBA v. Benefield, 125 P.3d 1191 (Okla. 2005) (one-year suspension for pattern of neglect and failure to represent clients diligently)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Whitebook, 242 P.3d 517 (Okla. 2010) (suspension where lawyer showed little regard for preserving license; discussion supporting two-year-and-one-day suspension)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Court’s de novo review role and standard in disciplinary matters)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Bellamy, 273 P.3d 56 (Okla. 2012) (discipline to protect public and purify the bar; relevant sanctions for neglect)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Knight, 359 P.3d 1122 (Okla. 2015) (rule on proving misconduct by clear and convincing evidence and process when allegations deemed admitted)
- State ex rel. OBA v. Phillips, 786 P.2d 1242 (Okla. 1990) (authority cited regarding discipline principles)