STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HIXSON
397 P.3d 483
| Okla. | 2017Background
- W. Mark Hixson, admitted 1992, represented S.R., an indigent 25‑year‑old client with a newborn and drug‑history; over ~7 weeks he exchanged ~83 pages of sexual texts with her.
- Hixson solicited S.R. to engage in prostitution twice (offering money and offering legal services in exchange for sexual favors); S.R. sent unclothed photos but there was no physical intercourse or touching.
- Police, alerted after S.R.’s arrest, searched cell phones and obtained the texts; Hixson pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor counts of solicitation of prostitution and received concurrent one‑year deferred sentences.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated summary disciplinary proceedings; an interim suspension was entered November 14, 2016, and the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) recommended a one‑year suspension.
- The Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, found professional misconduct (conflict/sexual exploitation and criminal solicitation), and imposed a six‑month suspension (credit for interim suspension), a public censure, and assessed costs of $2,026.91.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal convictions demonstrate unfitness / professional misconduct | Conviction for soliciting prostitution from a client reflects adversely on fitness and warrants discipline under Rule 8.4 | Argued mitigation, isolated incident, no physical contact, cooperated with authorities | Conviction conclusive per Rule 7.2; conduct constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4 and Rule 1.8 (sexual relations/conflict) |
| Whether seeking sexual relationship / exchanging sexual texts with client violated ethics (conflict / sexual relations rule) | Textual sexual advances and requesting nude photos exploited client and created a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7/1.8 | Claimed longstanding attraction and that relationship was not consummated; mitigation evidence of character | Court held sexual solicitation and exploitation created a conflict and breached fiduciary duties—violations of Rule 1.7/1.8 |
| Appropriate discipline (public censure vs. suspension; duration) | OBA initially sought public censure, later did not object to PRT one‑year suspension; PRT recommended one year suspension | Sought leniency: public censure or minimal suspension given mitigation and lack of physical contact | Court balanced mitigation and seriousness, imposed six‑month suspension (credit for interim), public censure, and costs; dissent favored two‑year suspension |
| Scope of review / sufficiency of record for summary discipline | OBA relied on certified criminal record and PRT proceedings as sufficient basis for discipline under Rules 7.1/7.2 | Hixson contested only mitigation and discipline severity; did not dispute record sufficiency | Court exercised exclusive de novo review, found record sufficient and criminal judgment conclusive evidence for disciplinary basis |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (de novo review and purposes of disciplinary proceedings)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Gassaway, 196 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2008) (attorney sexual advances to client violate ethical rules; severe discipline)
- 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. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) (Supreme Court not bound by PRT findings; conducts de novo review)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2006) (sexually suggestive remarks to clients not tolerated; public censure appropriate in certain harassment cases)