STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HASTINGS
2017 OK 43
| Okla. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 30, 2014 Hastings pointed a gun at his ex-wife inside his home while intoxicated, made death threats, and resisted police, resulting in an extended SOT standoff; he pled no contest to misdemeanor pointing a firearm in April 2015 under a two-year deferred sentence (later withdrawn and expunged in 2017).
- Prior history: lengthy abusive marriage in which court previously entered a protective order against the ex-wife in 2012; Hastings alleges years of being victimized, which contributed to ensuing substance abuse and PTSD.
- Hastings stopped drinking in early 2015, engaged in treatment and AA, tested negative on random screens, and experts concluded his addictions are in remission and he is fit to practice.
- OBA filed disciplinary proceedings under RGDP Rules 7.1 and 7.2; PRT recommended suspension for two years and one day.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found the criminal conduct demonstrated unfitness under Rule 8.4(b), but imposed a two-year suspension (effective from April 27, 2015), assessed costs of $4,250.96, and required completion of CLE and payment of costs prior to reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OBA) | Defendant's Argument (Hastings) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hastings' criminal plea demonstrates unfitness to practice | Misdemeanor pointing a firearm + intoxicated standoff reflects conduct that adversely affects honesty/trustworthiness and fitness | Mitigating circumstances (victim of domestic abuse, addiction/PTSD precipitated by abuse, sobriety and treatment) | Yes; conviction constitutes unfitness under Rule 8.4(b) and supports discipline |
| Appropriate length of suspension | Two years and one day, consistent with prior domestic-violence-related suspensions recommended by PRT | Argues mitigation and sustained recovery support a lesser suspension (two years) | Court imposed two-year suspension (declining PRT/OBA recommendation of two years + one day) |
| Role of mitigation (abuse history, recovery, expert opinions) | Should be considered but not outweigh seriousness of conduct | Significant mitigation: ongoing recovery, expert opinions of remission/fitness, no prior discipline, protective orders against ex-wife | Mitigation reduced discipline by one day relative to PRT/OBA recommendation; mitigators deemed substantial |
| Procedural effect of deferred sentence and later expungement | Conviction/plea under deferred sentence constitutes conclusive evidence for discipline under RGDP Rule 7.2 | Expungement and later withdrawal of plea argue for leniency | Deferred plea sufficed as disciplinary basis; expungement did not preclude discipline; discipline imposed despite later withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Supreme Court’s de novo review and exclusive jurisdiction over bar discipline)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (two-year-plus-one-day suspension for intentional, potentially deadly firearm misconduct)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (suspension following repeated domestic-violence incidents and relapse while under supervision)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Zanotti, 330 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2014) (two-year suspension where misconduct and mitigation warranted less than two years plus one day)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (Okla. 2007) (criminal acts, even if unrelated to law practice, can violate Rule 8.4)