441 P.3d 91
Okla.2019Background
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed an 11-count disciplinary complaint (Dec. 2017) against attorney Alexander L. Bednar alleging forgery, misrepresentations to courts, misappropriation, abusive discovery, unauthorized contacts, pattern of missed deadlines, retaliatory/frivolous suits, and failure to cooperate with Bar investigations.
- Bednar did not file a timely answer to the Complaint or to the Bar’s Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (Trial Panel) accordingly deemed the allegations admitted and heard evidence mainly on sanction and proof of material elements.
- The Trial Panel found clear-and-convincing evidence of multiple rule violations (including fraud, dishonesty, abusive litigation practices, misleading courts, contacting represented parties, and failing to cooperate) and recommended permanent disbarment.
- Bednar raised procedural/due-process objections (insufficient specificity of grievances, Bar bias, “trial by ambush,” improper subpoenas/quashes, Panel recusals) and contested several discrete factual allegations; he also relied on prior ADHD diagnosis as mitigation from his earlier discipline.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review, found clear-and-convincing evidence supporting misconduct in nine of eleven counts (with limited findings only for failure-to-respond on two counts and dismissing two counts), concluded prior discipline warranted enhancement, and ordered disbarment and assessed reduced costs of $20,580.48.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OBA) | Defendant's Argument (Bednar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deeming allegations admitted under RGDP 6.4 violated Bednar’s due process | The Bar contended it properly served notice and RGDP 6.4 permits deeming admissions when no answer is filed; trial evidence would address discipline and material elements | Bednar argued the process lacked specificity, was biased, and he lacked adequate time/preparation ("trial by ambush") | Court found service and procedure adequate; admissions were properly deemed but record still required clear-and-convincing proof of misconduct; due-process claims rejected |
| Whether Bednar failed to cooperate with Bar investigations (requests for records, medical info, accounting) | OBA says Bednar refused lawful demands, delayed responses, and obstructed investigations | Bednar asserted confidentiality/privilege for medical records and blamed broken computer or clients for failures | Court held Bednar violated RGDP 5.2 and ORPC 8.1(b) for several counts (failure to respond), but declined to treat refusal to produce medical records as misconduct under facts presented |
| Whether Bednar engaged in fraud, forgery, misrepresentations, falsified orders, and reckless filings | OBA presented documentary evidence, witness testimony, and court orders showing fabricated documents, false statements to tribunals, and abusive/dilatory litigation tactics | Bednar denied wrongdoing, blamed clients or opposing counsel, and relied on mitigation (ADHD) | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud, falsified pleadings, misrepresentations to judges, abusive discovery and repeated frivolous filings; multiple ORPC violations sustained |
| Appropriate discipline for the established misconduct | OBA sought disbarment given pattern, prior suspension, and the seriousness of forgery/fraud and public harm | Bednar urged mitigation and disputed enhancement by prior discipline; contested some factual findings | Court imposed disbarment (name stricken) as consistent with precedent and necessary to protect public and courts; costs assessed and partly reduced |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bednar, 299 P.3d 488 (Okla. 2013) (prior reciprocal discipline and mitigation considered)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Godlove, 318 P.3d 1086 (Okla. 2013) (disbarment for patterned frivolous litigation, discovery abuse, and failure to cooperate)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 359 P.3d 1122 (Okla. 2015) (interpretation and application of RGDP 6.4 on deemed admissions)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 51 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2002) (court’s de novo review and requirements for record to support discipline)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Gassaway, 196 P.3d 495 (Okla. 2008) (discipline aims: protect public, deter, and consider pattern of repeated offenses)