STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOODY, 394 P.3d 223

Chad W. Moody was retained in Nov. 2015 to represent Nichalas Frank in three criminal matters; a $500 retainer was paid but Frank failed to make additional promised payments.
On March 15, 2016 Moody learned staff had not received further payments and left two voicemail messages for Frank, containing vulgar language and threats to physically harm Frank and to see him go to prison.
Frank reported fearing for his safety, contacted a TV station (which aired censored audio), and filed a grievance with the Oklahoma Bar Association on March 17, 2016; Moody then moved to withdraw and was permitted to do so.
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed formal disciplinary charges alleging violations of RGDP Rule 1.3 (acts bringing discredit on the profession) and ORPC Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The Trial Panel found Moody’s voicemail messages unprofessional and prejudicial; the Supreme Court reviewed de novo and concluded Moody violated ORPC 8.4(d) and RGDP 1.3.
Discipline imposed: public reprimand and payment of costs ($2,498.75) within 90 days; Court noted mitigation (no prior discipline, atypical conduct) but emphasized threats/intimidation by an attorney are unacceptable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moody's voicemails violated ORPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)	Voicemails were abusive, threatening, coercive attempts to collect fees and thus prejudicial	Messages were offensive but mere insults; protected by free speech and intended to motivate client, not to undermine justice	Court held messages were threatening and coercive, violated ORPC 8.4(d)
Whether Moody's conduct violated RGDP 1.3 (bringing discredit upon the profession)	Abusive threats and demeaning language bring discredit on the legal profession	Moody argued his language was private, directed to a difficult client, and not representative conduct	Court held conduct brought discredit upon the profession and violated RGDP 1.3
Appropriate discipline for misconduct	Bar requested discipline (public sanction) to protect public and profession	Moody asked implicitly for leniency; noted no prior discipline and atypical conduct	Court imposed public reprimand and ordered payment of costs
Whether First Amendment protects attorney's abusive messages in this context	N/A (Bar's position focused on professional rules)	Moody invoked free speech as defense to discipline	Court rejected First Amendment defense as unpersuasive given professional obligations

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bourne, 880 P.2d 360 (1994) (upheld Rule 8.4(d) as sufficiently definite for disciplinary proceedings)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 37 P.3d 763 (2001) (Rule 8.4(d) violations require serious interference and often involve morally reprehensible conduct)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Anderson, 109 P.3d 326 (2005) (Supreme Court reviews disciplinary evidence de novo)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005) (Supreme Court acts as licensing court with exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn, 142 P.3d 420 (2006) (disciplinary proceedings aim to safeguard public, courts, and legal profession)