STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HYDE
2017 OK 59
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Martha Lynne Hyde, admitted in Oklahoma 2012, was sanctioned by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (N.D. Okla.) via an Agreed Judgment and Agreed Order suspending her from practice in the Northern and Eastern Districts of the Bankruptcy Court for five years following multiple sanction motions in related bankruptcy proceedings.
- Sanctions arose from Hyde’s representation of Stephen Lynch: late/deficient appeals and motions, filing an adversary complaint dismissed with prejudice, alleged frivolous and vexatious litigation, misrepresentations, and threats against opposing counsel and the trustee.
- Hyde settled with defendants about a week before a scheduled sanctions hearing, resulting in the Agreed Judgment/Order; no evidentiary hearing transcript exists from the Bankruptcy Court.
- Hyde reported the Bankruptcy Court suspension to the Oklahoma Bar and did not request a PRT hearing; she also had been administratively suspended in Oklahoma for nonpayment of dues and MCLE noncompliance during the pendency.
- The Oklahoma Bar proceeded under Rule 7.7 (reciprocal discipline). The Supreme Court found Hyde violated multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, frivolous claims, fairness in litigation, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice).
- Considering mitigating factors (new practitioner, prior foreign discipline, health issues, admission of procedural errors) and precedent, the Court imposed a six-month suspension and required participation in Lawyers Helping Lawyers; Chief Justice Combs dissented, favoring two years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bankruptcy Court consent-based Agreed Order/sanction can trigger reciprocal discipline under Rule 7.7 | The Agreed Judgment/Order constitutes adjudication and prima facie evidence of misconduct under Rule 7.7(b) and supports reciprocal discipline | The agreements were settlement/consent orders encouraged by the judge, not adjudications; not referred to the District's Disciplinary Committee; therefore not proper basis for reciprocal discipline | The Court held the agreed orders are sufficient adjudications under Rule 7.7(b); consent nature or judge urging settlement does not negate adjudicatory effect |
| Whether Hyde may challenge the factual findings underlying the foreign discipline | Complainant relied on documents transmitted under Rule 7.7(b) as prima facie evidence; Hyde limited to contest via certified transcript per Rule 7.7(b) | Hyde argued no transcript exists and settlement precludes relitigation; sought to limit review to mitigation evidence | Court held attacks on foreign fact-finding are limited to certified transcripts; absence of transcript confines Hyde largely to mitigation and explanation, but documents still prima facie evidence |
| Appropriate discipline in Oklahoma given foreign sanctions (five-year bankruptcy suspension) and Hyde’s mitigation | Bar urged discipline consistent with protecting public and precedent; considered foreign sanctions as mitigating but not dispositive | Hyde urged that five-year suspension was severe and the foreign discipline plus mitigating factors warrant lesser discipline | Court imposed six-month suspension and Lawyers Helping Lawyers participation, treating the bankruptcy suspension as a significant mitigating factor but not controlling |
| Whether Hyde violated specific Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct | Bar asserted violations of Rules 1.1, 3.1, 3.4(d), and 8.4(d) based on the conduct leading to sanctions | Hyde acknowledged procedural errors, health issues, and inexperience; disputed that settlement-based order should govern | Court found clear violations of the cited ORPC provisions and relied on them to support discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Patterson, 28 P.3d 551 (2001) (framework for reciprocal discipline and limits on relitigation of foreign findings)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Heinen, 60 P.3d 1018 (2002) (consent judgments in reciprocal-discipline context and their preclusive effect)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Tweedy, 52 P.3d 1003 (2000) (suspension imposed for vexatious federal filings; foreign discipline as mitigating)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Oliver, 369 P.3d 1074 (2016) (reciprocal discipline following bankruptcy-court suspension; due-process considerations)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wintory, 350 P.3d 131 (2015) (limitations on challenging foreign jurisdiction fact-finding; evidentiary scope under Rule 7.7)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Allford, 152 P.3d 190 (2006) (Oklahoma Supreme Court’s de novo review in discipline matters)