STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOODY, 2017 OK 30

Background

Chad Ward Moody was retained in Nov. 2015 to represent Nichalas Frank in three criminal matters; a $500 retainer was paid but monthly payments totaling $4,000 were not made.
On March 15, 2016, after learning Frank had not paid, Moody left two voicemails (one at 10:31 AM and one at 10:33 AM) containing vulgar language, threats, and statements that he wanted to see the client go to prison.
Frank filed a grievance with the Oklahoma Bar Association the next day; Moody moved to withdraw and was permitted to do so by the district court.
The OBA charged Moody with violating RGDP Rule 1.3 (acts bringing discredit on the profession) and ORPC Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The Trial Panel found misconduct and recommended a public censure; the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo and imposed a public reprimand and ordered Moody to pay costs of $2,498.75.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moody's voicemail messages violated ORPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)	Moody's threats and vulgar abuse to coerce fee payment were prejudicial to justice and morally reprehensible.	Moody contended the language was offensive but not morally reprehensible and was protected speech intended to motivate the client.	Court held messages constituted intimidation/coercion and were prejudicial to administration of justice; violation of ORPC 8.4(d).
Whether Moody's conduct violated RGDP Rule 1.3 (acts bringing discredit on the profession)	The Bar argued the messages brought discredit on the legal profession.	Moody argued such invective was private or justified by the client’s conduct and not typical.	Court found conduct brought discredit on the profession and violated RGDP 1.3.
Appropriate discipline for the misconduct	Bar sought disciplinary action to protect public and profession.	Moody emphasized lack of prior discipline, that this was not his usual practice, and defended the speech.	Court imposed a public reprimand and ordered payment of costs; mitigation noted but insufficient for lighter sanction.
Whether First Amendment or lack of notice shielded Moody	Bar argued professional rules limit attorney conduct regardless of generalized free-speech claims.	Moody argued his speech was protected and he lacked notice that it violated professional rules.	Court rejected First Amendment and notice defenses, explaining professional conduct rules and analogy to statutes limiting abusive debt-collection tactics.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bourne, 880 P.2d 360 (1994) (Rule 8.4(d) is sufficiently definite for disciplinary proceedings)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 37 P.3d 763 (2001) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice requires serious interference or morally reprehensible behavior)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Anderson, 109 P.3d 326 (2005) (appellate review of disciplinary proceedings de novo)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005) (Supreme Court acts as licensing court in disciplinary matters)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (2006) (disciplinary process protects public, courts, and profession)