STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHAHAN, 2017 OK 10

Ian Michael Shahan, admitted 2009, pled guilty or nolo contendere to three Oklahoma misdemeanors stemming from two alcohol-related incidents: Public Intoxication (Nov. 15, 2014) and Driving Under the Influence plus Leaving Scene of Collision Involving Property Damage (Feb. 6, 2015).
He received a $50 fine for public intoxication and an 18-month deferred sentence for the DUI; he self-reported the arrests to the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA).
The Court entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension on Feb. 1, 2016; Respondent requested and received a Rule 7 hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (Trial Panel).
The Trial Panel found Respondent cooperative, remorseful, with no client harm, substantial mitigation (AA, Lawyers Helping Lawyers participation, community service), and recommended a six-month suspension retroactive to Feb. 1, 2016, plus a deferred 12-month suspension with conditions.
The Supreme Court reviewed precedents on alcohol-related misconduct and mitigation, concluded the Trial Panel’s six-month suspension was excessive, lifted the interim suspension, imposed public censure, noted the one-year deferred suspension conditions had been satisfied, and ordered payment of costs ($2,546.60).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Respondent's criminal convictions warrant professional discipline	Rule 7.1 permits discipline where a lawyer pleads guilty to crimes demonstrating unfitness to practice	Convictions arose from alcohol-related incidents; Respondent cooperated, sought treatment, no client harm, strong mitigation	Convictions provide basis for discipline; Court imposed public censure rather than suspension
Appropriate severity of discipline given facts and mitigation	Seriousness of offenses supports suspension (Trial Panel recommended six-month suspension)	Mitigation (sobriety steps, treatment, community service, character evidence) supports lesser discipline	Public censure is appropriate; six-month suspension deemed too punitive and reduced
Whether Respondent’s conduct shows a pattern indicating indifference to legal obligations	Repeated alcohol offenses can show indifference and justify harsher discipline (citing prior cases)	This is not an extensive pattern; Respondent’s conduct was out of character and he has been rehabilitated	Distinguished from cases with repeated offenses; mitigation and lack of client harm warranted leniency

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (2009) (appellate standard: de novo review of Trial Panel findings and credibility)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 304 P.3d 453 (2013) (a felony DUI does not necessarily demonstrate unfitness to practice law)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bernhardt, 323 P.3d 222 (2014) (multiple DUI convictions and repeated alcohol offenses can show indifference to legal obligations; deferred suspension imposed)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Burns, 145 P.3d 1088 (2006) (multiple DUI arrests and treatment history; six-month suspension and probation imposed)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (2007) (attorney with alcohol convictions credited for sobriety; public censure and deferred suspension imposed)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005) (chronic alcoholism with sexual battery convictions while intoxicated; public censure and probation imposed)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger, 37 P.3d 856 (2001) (cooperation and treatment for substance abuse can mitigate discipline)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990) (not all criminal convictions indicate unfitness to practice; discipline focuses on offenses reflecting on characteristics relevant to law practice)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Anderson, 109 P.3d 326 (2005) (Trial Panel recommendations are advisory; Supreme Court makes final discipline determination)