STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HYDE
397 P.3d 1286
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Martha Lynne Hyde, admitted to Oklahoma in 2012, was subject to an Agreed Judgment and Agreed Order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (N.D. Okla.) suspending her from practice in the Northern and Eastern Bankruptcy Districts for five years based on sanction motions (Rule 9011 and related contempt/sanctions).
- The Agreed Judgment arose after Hyde represented Stephen Lynch in attempts to vacate a 2012 bankruptcy compromise and pursued an adversary proceeding that the Bankruptcy Court dismissed; multiple defendants sought sanctions against Hyde for filing frivolous/vexatious claims and misconduct.
- Hyde consulted the Oklahoma Bar about reporting duties under Rule 7.7 and did notify the Bar; the Bar transmitted the Bankruptcy Court documents and initiated a reciprocal discipline proceeding under Rule 7.7(b).
- Hyde argued the Bankruptcy orders were settlement-based (consent orders), not adjudicative discipline, and that they were not referred to the federal disciplinary committee, so they should not mandate reciprocal discipline.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed de novo, treated the certified orders as prima facie evidence under Rule 7.7(b), found Hyde violated multiple Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (competence, frivolous claims, fairness, prejudicial conduct), and imposed a six-month suspension plus requirement to participate in Lawyers Helping Lawyers (less than the five-year federal suspension).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OBA) | Defendant's Argument (Hyde) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a consent/settlement-based federal Agreed Judgment/Order can be the basis for reciprocal discipline under Rule 7.7(b) | The certified Agreed Judgment/Order constitutes a charge and prima facie evidence of misconduct under Rule 7.7(b) | The federal orders were consensual settlements (no adjudication or hearing) and thus do not constitute adjudicative discipline for Rule 7.7 | Court: Consent orders still produce an adjudicatory judgment sufficient under Rule 7.7(b); they may be used as prima facie evidence. |
| Whether failure to have the federal sanction referred to a federal disciplinary committee prevents reciprocal discipline | Referral to a disciplinary committee is not a prerequisite to reciprocal proceedings in Oklahoma | Hyde contended lack of referral and label as "sanctions" (not discipline) undermined Rule 7.7 basis | Court: Referral procedure of federal court is irrelevant; the court order suspending practice is sufficient basis for Oklahoma action. |
| Whether the Court may relitigate the factual findings underlying the foreign adjudication | Rule 7.7(b) limits attacks to certified transcript evidence; Oklahoma may review but not relitigate facts beyond the foreign record | Hyde sought to challenge lack of transcript/evidence and argued insufficiency of the underlying facts | Court: Limited review allowed; absent a transcript, the certified documents stand as prima facie evidence; respondent may present mitigation but cannot relitigate de novo. |
| Appropriate discipline given federal suspension and other mitigating factors | Federal five-year bankruptcy suspension and other federal sanctions are mitigating; compare to analogous Oklahoma precedents (Tweedy, etc.) | Hyde urged mitigation: health issues, new practitioner, client advocacy, remorse, employer support | Court: Federal discipline is a significant mitigating factor; considering Hyde's inexperience and other factors, imposed six-month suspension and requirement to participate in Lawyers Helping Lawyers (Chief Justice dissent would have imposed two years). |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Tweedy, 52 P.3d 1003 (Okla. 2000) (factors guiding suspension vs. disbarment where attorney filed multiple vexatious suits and federal discipline existed)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Patterson, 28 P.3d 551 (Okla. 2001) (reciprocal-discipline framework and limits on giving preclusive effect to foreign disciplinary orders)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Heinen, 60 P.3d 1018 (Okla. 2002) (analysis of consent judgments in reciprocal disciplinary context)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wintory, 350 P.3d 131 (Okla. 2015) (Rule 7.7(b) confines attacks on foreign factfinding to certified transcripts)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Oliver, 369 P.3d 1074 (Okla. 2016) (reciprocal discipline after bankruptcy-court suspension; procedural protections and sanctions for failure to report)