STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HELTON
2017 OK 31
Okla.2017Background
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint against attorney Scott R. Helton over his four-year non‑genetic, close personal relationship with 91‑year‑old client Lonnie Brooks and his handling of her affairs after he represented her in a probate matter.
- Helton prepared estate planning documents for Brooks, was named personal representative and beneficiary of an annuity at one point, and helped create Lonnie Brooks Enterprises, LLC (holding her house) and Helton Properties, LLC (holding rental properties Helton managed).
- Brooks gave Helton and his wife joint access to her bank account to pay bills; Helton liquidated Brooks’ annuity (~$200,000) and used proceeds to acquire rental properties through Helton Properties, LLC, with an unwritten arrangement that Helton would keep one‑third of rents as management compensation.
- Independent counsel (Charles Swartz) met with Brooks on at least two occasions about the annuity and a new will; Brooks consistently testified she was competent, directed Helton, and was satisfied with his help and the transfers.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found clear and convincing evidence Helton violated multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (including Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.8(a), 1.15) and Rule 8.4(a); PRT recommended a public reprimand. The Supreme Court agreed and publicly reprimanded Helton but declined to assess costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helton violated competence, diligence, and communication rules (ORPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) | Helton continued to act as counsel and took legal actions on Brooks’ behalf without proper documentation, failed to reduce business terms to writing, and failed to obtain informed consent | Helton contends he stopped seeing himself as counsel after the probate and acted as a family member helping Brooks; Brooks perceived him as her agent and was content | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supports technical violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 because Helton performed legal acts and failed to comply with requirements for informed consent and documentation |
| Whether business transactions and gifts with client violated Rule 1.8(a) and 1.8(c) | Forming and managing Helton Properties and taking ownership/interests adverse to Brooks without written disclosure, independent counsel advice, or signed informed consent violated Rule 1.8(a); transfers might be gifts in violation of 1.8(c) | Helton says transactions were intended to benefit Brooks (generate income) and not to make gifts to him; no evidence of solicited gift or donative intent | Court: Violated Rule 1.8(a) (business transaction requirements unmet); did not find sufficient evidence of a gift under Rule 1.8(c) (no donative intent/acceptance shown) |
| Whether Helton committed conversion/commingling (Rule 1.15) by overpaying himself from Helton Properties, LLC funds | Bar: Helton overpaid himself and used funds for personal construction expenses, amounting to simple conversion of funds held for Brooks’ benefit | Helton argues overpayments were inadvertent, without intent to misappropriate, and no harm to Brooks occurred; he later reimbursed the shortfall | Court: Intent not required for simple conversion; clear and convincing evidence Helton committed simple conversion in violation of Rule 1.15 |
| Appropriate discipline and costs | Bar: Suspension (minimum six months) and assessment of costs ($4,439.47) given multiple rule violations and risk to public trust | Helton/PRT: Public reprimand appropriate given unique mitigating circumstances (close familial relationship, client satisfaction, no prior discipline, restitution, independent counsel used for some matters) | Court: Agreed with PRT — public reprimand imposed; costs not assessed. Dissenters would suspend (90 days to six months) and assess costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Combs, 175 P.3d 340 (Okla. 2007) (conversion and commingling precedents; intent distinctions)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1242 (Okla. 2000) (seriousness of commingling/client funds; public confidence rationale)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mansfield, 350 P.3d 108 (Okla. 2015) (simple conversion discipline—suspension analysis)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McLain, 65 P.3d 281 (Okla. 2003) (analogous discipline for Rule 1.8 issues; used as benchmark)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Raskin, 642 P.2d 262 (Okla. 1982) (trust in lawyers regarding client funds; restitution not strongly mitigating)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Boone, 367 P.3d 509 (Okla. 2016) (de novo review standard in disciplinary appeals)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Friesen, 384 P.3d 1129 (Okla. 2016) (discipline aims to protect public and legal profession)