STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HIXSON, 2017 OK 56

Background

Respondent W. Mark Hixson, an Oklahoma attorney admitted 1992, sent an 83‑page series of sexual text messages to his criminal‑defense client S.R., a vulnerable, indigent 25‑year‑old mother. He solicited prostitution twice and offered legal fees or $100 in exchange for sex. No physical sexual contact occurred.
S.R. sent unclothed photos after the texts; police seized the phones, and Hixson was charged with two misdemeanors for soliciting prostitution. He pleaded nolo contendere and received concurrent one‑year deferred sentences.
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed summary disciplinary proceedings; an interim suspension was entered November 14, 2016. The PRT recommended a one‑year suspension.
The Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found professional misconduct (ethical violations plus criminal conduct reflecting on fitness), and weighed aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Court suspended Hixson’s license for six months (crediting interim suspension), issued a public censure, and assessed costs of $2,026.91 payable before reinstatement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the criminal conviction and conduct demonstrate unfitness/professional misconduct	OBA: conviction for soliciting prostitution (to his client) is conclusive evidence and reflects adversely on fitness; supports discipline	Hixson: conduct was limited to texts, no physical contact; isolated, out‑of‑character; mitigation warrants leniency	Held: Conviction and conduct constitute professional misconduct under Rule 8.4; discipline warranted.
Whether sexual pursuit/requests created an ethical conflict with client representation	OBA: solicitation and pursuit of sexual relationship exploited client, violating Rules 1.7/1.8 and fiduciary duty	Hixson: implied defenses about consent and lack of physical contact; emphasized prior relationship as public defender	Held: Violations of Rules 1.7/1.8; attorney exploited client and breached duty of trust.
Appropriate sanction (censure vs. suspension and length)	PRT recommended one‑year suspension; OBA ultimately did not object to PRT recommendation	Hixson: sought only public censure and immediate lifting of interim suspension; emphasized mitigation	Held: Suspension for six months (with credit for interim suspension), public censure, and costs.
Role of mitigation and remorse in discipline determination	OBA/PRT noted lack of remorse toward the client as aggravating; media publicity and resignation from posts noted	Hixson: presented character witnesses, community service, cooperation, expressed remorse for effects on family/community; isolated incident	Held: Mitigating evidence reduced discipline from PRT’s one‑year recommendation to a six‑month suspension despite inadequate expressed remorse to the client.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Gassaway, 196 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2008) (attorney solicitation of client for sexual favors is severe misconduct; illustrates disbarment in extensive misconduct context)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Miskovsky, 938 P.2d 744 (Okla. 1997) (attorney’s sexual exploitation of clients demonstrates flagrant disregard for client interests)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (sexually suggestive remarks to clients are intolerable and subject to discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (Supreme Court’s de novo review in disciplinary matters and purposes of discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Court not bound by PRT findings; conducts independent review for discipline)