STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHAHAN
2017 OK 10
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Ian Michael Shahan, admitted 2009, was arrested for Public Intoxication (Nov 15, 2014) and later for DUI and Leaving Scene of Collision (Feb 6, 2015); all charges were misdemeanors.
- He pleaded guilty to Public Intoxication, guilty to DUI (deferred 18‑month sentence), and no contest to Leaving Scene; he self‑reported to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
- Court entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension (Feb 1, 2016); Respondent requested and received a Rule 7 hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal.
- Trial Panel found Respondent cooperative, remorseful, with no client harm and strong character evidence; recommended six‑month suspension (retroactive) plus a deferred one‑year suspension with conditions.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo, credited rehabilitation efforts (AA, Lawyers Helping Lawyers, community work), and found the Trial Panel’s six‑month suspension excessive.
- Disposition: interim suspension lifted; public censure imposed; the previously ordered one‑year deferred suspension was satisfied; Respondent ordered to pay costs ($2,546.60).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondent’s criminal convictions require discipline under RGDP Rule 7.1 | Convictions (DUI, leaving scene, public intoxication) reflect adversely on the profession and warrant suspension | Respondent argued mitigation: single episode pattern (not longstanding), rehabilitation, no client harm, cooperative conduct | Court held convictions support discipline but mitigation permits lesser sanction than suspension; public censure imposed |
| Whether the Trial Panel’s recommended six‑month suspension was appropriate | OBA supported significant discipline consistent with precedent for alcohol‑related misconduct | Respondent urged that cooperation, sobriety, treatment, and strong character evidence warrant leniency | Court found six‑month suspension too punitive in light of remediation and comparable cases; reduced to public censure |
| Relevance of prior case law on alcohol‑related attorney misconduct | OBA relied on cases imposing suspensions for repeated or severe alcohol conduct | Respondent relied on cases where mitigation led to censure or deferred suspension | Court compared precedents and used them to calibrate sanction, distinguishing more severe or repetitive offenders |
| Conditions and monitoring following discipline | OBA sought ongoing monitoring and conditions to protect the public and ensure sobriety | Respondent accepted conditions (Lawyers Helping Lawyers contract, abstinence, waiver of confidentiality for reporting defaults) | Court required compliance with court‑imposed deferred sentence conditions, continued abstinence and monitoring; costs assessed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990) (discusses which crimes reflect on fitness to practice)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger, 37 P.3d 856 (2001) (rehabilitation and cooperation can mitigate discipline for substance abuse)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Burns, 145 P.3d 1088 (2006) (six‑month suspension and probation for repeated serious DUI offenses)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (2007) (deferred suspension and conditions where attorney embraced sobriety, no client harm)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bernhardt, 323 P.3d 222 (2014) (multiple DUI convictions can establish pattern warranting significant discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 304 P.3d 453 (2013) (a felony DUI does not necessarily demonstrate unfitness to practice)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (2009) (appellate standard: de novo review of Trial Panel findings)