STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HIXSON
2017 Okla. LEXIS 58
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Respondent W. Mark Hixson, admitted 1992, was criminally charged after soliciting prostitution from a long‑time criminal-defense client (S.R.) via repeated sexually explicit text messages over ~7 weeks. No physical sexual contact occurred.
- Client S.R. was indigent, recently given birth, on deferred sentence, had drug‑abuse history and child‑welfare involvement—creating a clear power imbalance.
- Police seized the text messages after S.R.’s arrest; Hixson pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor counts of soliciting prostitution under a deferred sentence.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) initiated summary disciplinary proceedings; an interim suspension was imposed November 14, 2016. The Trial Panel recommended one year suspension; OBA ultimately did not oppose that recommendation. Hixson sought only public censure.
- The Court reviewed de novo, found violations of ORPC (conflict/sexual exploitation and Rule 8.4 criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness), and imposed a six‑month suspension (credit for interim suspension), public censure, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hixson's conviction/solicitation demonstrates professional misconduct/unfitness | OBA: Soliciting prostitution from a client and inducing client to commit a crime reflects adversely on fitness and violates Rule 8.4 and client duties | Hixson: Conduct was nonphysical, isolated, mitigated by prior good character and cooperation; sought only censure | Held: Yes. Criminal solicitation of his own client constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4 and violated fiduciary duties |
| Whether the sexual text conduct created a conflict of interest/impermissible sexual relations | OBA: Repeated sexual advances, requests for nude photos and pursuit of sexual favors exploited client and created a conflict under Rules 1.7/1.8 | Hixson: Relationship never became physical; argued mitigation and character evidence | Held: Held that texts established sexual exploitation and a concurrent conflict of interest in violation of Rules 1.7/1.8 |
| Appropriate discipline (censure vs. suspension; length) | OBA/PRT: PRT recommended one‑year suspension; OBA ultimately did not object to one year; initially sought only censure | Hixson: Asked for public censure and lifting interim suspension; emphasized mitigation (community service, leadership, remorse to family/community) | Held: Court imposed six‑month suspension (credit for interim suspension), public censure, and costs — more than censure but less than PRT's one year; dissent favored two years |
| Standard of review and evidentiary basis for discipline | OBA: Certified criminal record suffices; protection of public and bar integrity warrant discipline | Hixson: Relied on mitigation and isolated, nonphysical nature of misconduct | Held: Court conducted de novo review, found record sufficient (certified conviction and PRT record) and applied disciplinary goals (protect public, preserve confidence, promote integrity, deter misconduct) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction over bar discipline; de novo review)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (discipline aims: protect public and purify the bar; record sufficiency for de novo review)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Gassaway, 196 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2008) (attorney sexual advances to clients violate professional duties; precedent addressing solicitation in attorney‑client context)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Miskovsky, 938 P.2d 744 (Okla. 1997) (trading legal services for sexual favors shows flagrant disregard of client interests)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (sexually suggestive remarks to clients unacceptable; disciplinary precedent)