STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WITHERS, 445 P.3d 229

Background

Jackie Miller hired Withers to refile a 2009 medical-malpractice suit; prior counsel Van Meter asserted an attorney's lien. Withers later became sole counsel and negotiated settlements with OUMC and some doctors.
Withers deposited settlement checks made jointly to him and Miller into his operating account rather than a trust account, disbursed funds to Miller, and later paid lien claimants after delays.
Withers endorsed a formal release in Miller’s name, attempted to replicate her signature, and had it notarized without written power of attorney; Miller disputes any oral authorization.
OBA charged Withers with violations of ORPC Rules 1.15 (safekeeping funds), 8.4(a) and (c) (professional misconduct; dishonesty), and others; the PRT found violations of 1.15 and 8.4(a)/(c) but not 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, concluded evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for 1.15 and 8.4(a)/(c) (commingling and misrepresentation), found conversion but not theft, and imposed a 90-day suspension plus costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Withers mishandle client funds (ORPC 1.15)?	Withers commingled trust funds by depositing settlements into his operating account and delayed lien payments.	Withers acknowledged deposits but maintained he promptly paid client once lien waivers arrived and cooperated.	Yes. Depositing joint-payee settlement checks into operating account violated Rule 1.15; conduct amounted to commingling and escalated to simple conversion.
Did Withers engage in dishonest conduct (ORPC 8.4(c)) by signing/notarizing Miller’s release?	Signing Miller’s name and causing notarization was dishonest misrepresentation.	Withers claimed oral consent and lack of intent to defraud.	Yes. Attempting to replicate Miller’s signature and obtaining notarization without written authority constituted misrepresentation under 8.4(c).
Are there violations of competency, diligence, communication, or fee rules (ORPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)?	Complainant alleged multiple rule breaches related to competence, diligence, communication, and fees.	Withers argued he obtained a substantially better recovery and cooperated; no clear proof of those violations.	No. Court found insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence to support violations of 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, or 1.5.
Appropriate discipline?	OBA recommended one-year suspension.	Withers emphasized cooperation, lack of prior discipline, no client harm, and remorse as mitigating.	Suspension for 90 days and payment of costs ($2,136.39) was appropriate given analogous precedents and mitigating factors.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Combs, 175 P.3d 340 (Okla. 2007) (commingling and mishandling funds; 90-day suspension imposed)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Jaques, 11 P.3d 621 (Okla. 2000) (improper notarization and acknowledgment; 30-day suspension)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Parsons, 57 P.3d 865 (Okla. 2002) (commingling and dishonest conduct in settlement handling; one-year suspension)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1242 (Okla. 2000) (cited as background precedent for discipline consistency)