STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HASTINGS, 2017 OK 43

On Dec. 30, 2014 Hastings, intoxicated, pointed a firearm at his ex-wife in his home and threatened her; police staged a multi-hour SOT standoff and used tear gas to remove him. He pled no contest to misdemeanor pointing a firearm and received a 2‑year deferred sentence with a drug/alcohol assessment; the misdemeanor plea was later withdrawn and expunged after compliance with the deferred sentence.
A permanent protective order against the ex‑wife had been entered in 2012 and another protective order against her was entered in May 2015; the record reflects a history of abuse by the ex‑wife against Hastings.
Hastings had prior long sobriety, then relapsed into alcohol and opiate addiction related to the abusive marriage; by early 2015 he stopped drinking, entered treatment and AA, and experts testified his addictions are in full remission and he is fit to practice.
The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated summary disciplinary proceedings under RGDP Rules 7.1–7.2; the PRT recommended suspension for two years and one day.
The Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found the conduct demonstrated unfitness under Rule 8.4(b), but imposed a two‑year suspension (from Apr. 27, 2015), assessed costs $4,250.96, and ordered completion of CLE and verification before reinstatement.

Issue	OBA's Argument	Hastings' Argument	Held
Does the criminal conviction (no contest to pointing a firearm) demonstrate unfitness to practice under Rule 8.4(b)?	Yes — a violent criminal act while intoxicated reflects adversely on fitness and warrants discipline.	While he possessed a gun, he emphasized history of being victimized, intoxication, limited memory, and eventual sobriety; experts say he is fit.	Yes — conviction and substance abuse demonstrate unfitness under Rule 8.4(b).
What discipline is appropriate?	Suspend for two years and one day (PRT and OBA recommendation) given violence and public danger.	Mitigation: single incident, history of victimization, sustained recovery, full remission, no prior discipline; two‑year suspension sufficient.	Two‑year suspension imposed (declining PRT/OBA recommended two years + one day); costs and CLE required.
Are mitigating factors (history of abuse, prompt treatment, remission, lack of prior discipline) sufficient to reduce discipline below comparable cases?	N/A (OBA urged harsher discipline).	Yes — these factors and experts’ opinions justify a two‑year (not two‑year+1) suspension.	Court found mitigation persuasive and reduced suspension length to two years.

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Supreme Court’s de novo review and authority over bar discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2012) (violent firearm conduct supporting two‑year+one‑day suspension)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (domestic violence, repeated incidents, and relapse supporting significant suspension)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Zannotti, 330 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2014) (misdemeanor domestic violence resulting in two‑year suspension)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (Okla. 2007) (criminal acts can reflect unfitness under Rule 8.4)