378 P.3d 1212
Okla.2016Background
- Respondent Shanita Danielle Gaines, an Oklahoma-licensed lawyer, was adjudicated in Texas on three disciplinary matters and received a two-year suspension that was fully probated by a Texas Evidentiary Panel.
- Texas findings included neglect of legal matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to safeguard and promptly deliver settlement funds (commingling/conversion), failure to supervise nonlawyer staff, sharing fees with a nonlawyer, and an order for restitution and payment of Bar fees.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated a reciprocal-discipline proceeding under R.G.D.P. Rule 7.7 by transmitting the Texas adjudication to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
- The Court ordered Gaines to show cause why Oklahoma should not impose discipline; Gaines did not respond or request a hearing.
- The Court treated the Texas adjudication as prima facie evidence of misconduct, found Oklahoma rules violations (safekeeping funds, communication, supervision), and determined two years and one day suspension was appropriate.
- The Court also assessed costs of $66.52 and required compliance with procedures for client notification and withdrawal (R.G.D.P. Rule 9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas adjudication supports reciprocal discipline in OK | Bar: Texas findings constitute prima facie evidence; Oklahoma may impose discipline under Rule 7.7 | Gaines: (no response or hearing requested) | Held: Texas judgment is prima facie evidence; reciprocal proceeding proceeds; respondent failed to rebut |
| Proper scope/severity of discipline | Bar: Suspend Gaines for two years and one day (consistent with similar Oklahoma precedents) | Gaines: (no mitigating submissions) | Held: Suspension for two years and one day imposed |
| Misconduct: mishandling client funds (commingling/conversion) | Bar: Texas findings show failure to safekeep and to promptly deliver funds; restitution ordered | Gaines: (no contest presented) | Held: Court found commingling and conversion; discipline warranted |
| Failure to supervise nonlawyer/unauthorized practice and communication neglect | Bar: Findings show inadequate supervision, fee-sharing with nonlawyer, neglect and lack of communication | Gaines: (no rebuttal) | Held: Violations of supervision, communication, and professional conduct rules established |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Meek, 1994 OK 118, 895 P.2d 692 (discusses commingling and conversion definitions and discipline range)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 2014 OK 71, 330 P.3d 1216 (reciprocal-discipline comparison of Texas and Oklahoma rules; one-year suspension precedent)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wintory, 2015 OK 25, 350 P.3d 131 (discusses Court's discretion to impose equal/greater/lesser discipline in reciprocal matters)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Demopolos, 2015 OK 50, 352 P.3d 1210 (permitting assessment of costs in Rule 7 proceedings)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed, 2011 OK 84, 264 P.3d 1197 (authority for disciplining lawyers for out-of-state sanctions under Rule 7.7)