STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HYDE
2017 OK 59
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Martha Lynne Hyde, admitted to Oklahoma bar in 2012, was sanctioned by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Northern and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma) via an Agreed Judgment and Agreed Order that suspended her from practicing in those bankruptcy courts for five years.
- Sanctions arose from Hyde’s representation of Stephen Lynch in efforts to vacate a prior bankruptcy compromise and subsequent adversary litigation the Bankruptcy Court found frivolous and abusive; allegations included filing baseless claims, misrepresentations, and threats of criminal accusations against opposing counsel and the trustee.
- Multiple motions for sanctions and contempt were filed in bankruptcy and district courts under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and inherent authority; some matters were dismissed, others led to referrals and committee review.
- Hyde consented to the settlement suspending bankruptcy practice about a week before a scheduled sanctions hearing; no evidentiary transcript from that hearing exists because the matter settled.
- Hyde notified the Oklahoma Bar and the Bar initiated a Rule 7.7 reciprocal-discipline proceeding; she did not request a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal and raised objections that the settlement did not constitute formal discipline for purposes of reciprocity.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court found her conduct violated multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, frivolous claims, fairness in discovery/pretrial, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law in Oklahoma plus participation in Lawyers Helping Lawyers (less than the five-year federal bankruptcy suspension).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bankruptcy Court’s Agreed Order/Judgment supports reciprocal discipline under Rule 7.7 | The Agreed Judgment and Order suspending Hyde from bankruptcy practice constitute an adjudication and prima facie evidence of misconduct under Rule 7.7(b) | Hyde: settlement/consent order is not an adjudicated discipline; not referred to disciplinary committee; therefore not a proper basis for reciprocal discipline | Court: Consent suspension is an adjudication sufficient for Rule 7.7(b); reciprocal discipline is proper |
| Whether Hyde may challenge underlying factual findings absent a certified transcript | Complainant: the Agreed Order is prima facie evidence; challenges limited to certified transcripts per Rule 7.7(b) | Hyde: no transcript exists because there was no hearing; she should be able to contest the factual basis | Court: Rule 7.7 limits review to the record and any certified transcript; absence of transcript confines Hyde to mitigation arguments but does not preclude discipline |
| Appropriate quantum of discipline in Oklahoma given federal sanctions | Complainant: federal five-year suspension is a significant mitigating factor but Oklahoma may calibrate discipline | Hyde: emphasize mitigation (health, new practitioner, good faith advocacy) and severity of five-year suspension | Court: considered federal suspension and mitigating factors; imposed six-month suspension in Oklahoma and required rehabilitation participation (Lawyers Helping Lawyers) |
| Whether failure to keep Oklahoma license current affects discipline | Complainant: lapse shows disregard for rules; relevant to discipline | Hyde: mitigation factors more important | Held: Court noted Hyde’s administrative suspension for nonpayment/MCLE and considered it indicative of indifference, reinforcing need for discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Patterson, 28 P.3d 551 (Okla. 2001) (reciprocal-discipline framework and limits on relitigation of foreign findings)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Heinen, 60 P.3d 1018 (Okla. 2002) (consent judgments in disciplinary context and when preclusive effect is considered)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Tweedy, 52 P.3d 1003 (Okla. 2000) (suspension for vexatious, baseless litigation; federal discipline considered mitigating)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Oliver, 369 P.3d 1074 (Okla. 2016) (use of federal bankruptcy sanctions as basis for Oklahoma reciprocal discipline and due process concerns)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wintory, 350 P.3d 131 (Okla. 2015) (limitations on attacking foreign jurisdiction fact-finding without certified transcript)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Allder, 48 P.3d 794 (Okla. 2002) (public censure where federal suspension was substantial mitigating factor)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Burnett, 91 P.3d 641 (Okla. 2004) (consideration of supervision/training and reporting obligations in discipline)