481 P.3d 261
Okla.2021Background
- Tara K. Jack was an Assistant District Attorney and Director of the Traffic & Misdemeanor Division in Tulsa County and directly supervised attorneys and nonlawyers.
- Between 2017–2018 five individuals assigned to Jack (Sweeney, Young, James, Deane, Shouse) appeared and acted in criminal proceedings before they were licensed or otherwise authorized to practice in Oklahoma.
- Judge April Siebert was informed by Sweeney that Sweeney was unlicensed; the judge ordered her to stop and notified Jack and the First Assistant DA, triggering an internal investigation and voluntary disclosure to the Oklahoma Bar Association.
- Jack stipulated she assigned cases to and supervised the five individuals and was aware they engaged in the practice of law while unlicensed.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found clear and convincing evidence Jack violated Rules 5.3(b), 5.3(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), 8.4(d) ORPC and Rule 1.3 RGDP and recommended public censure.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted the Tribunal's findings, publicly censured Jack, and ordered her to pay costs of $4,801.58.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jack failed to make reasonable supervisory efforts (Rule 5.3(b)) | Jack knowingly supervised unlicensed persons who practiced law; she failed to ensure conduct was compatible with professional obligations | Jack relied on office procedures, First Assistant, and HR; asserted delegation and mitigation steps after discovery | Court: Violation proven by clear and convincing evidence; Jack failed reasonable supervisory efforts |
| Whether Jack is responsible for subordinate misconduct (Rule 5.3(c)) | Jack ordered/ratified or knew of the conduct and failed to prevent it | Jack argued shared supervisory structure and limited daily oversight | Court: Violation proven; her supervisory authority and knowledge make her responsible |
| Whether Jack assisted/induced unauthorized practice (Rule 5.5(a) and 8.4(a)) | Assigning cases and supervising unlicensed individuals knowingly assisted unauthorized practice | Jack emphasized office context, delegation, and subsequent corrective measures | Court: Violation proven; her actions assisted unauthorized practice and violated 8.4(a) |
| Whether Jack engaged in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Rule 8.4(d)) | Allowing unlicensed prosecutors produced deceit/misrepresentation, undermined public trust and jeopardized defendants' rights | Jack noted no prior discipline, removal from supervisory role, and office reforms | Court: Violation proven; conduct prejudicial to administration of justice given dishonesty/misrepresentation element |
| Appropriate discipline and costs | Public censure and assessment of costs to vindicate public trust and deter recurrence | Mitigation: long practice without prior discipline; office reforms; shared responsibility with other supervisors | Court: Public censure imposed; costs of $4,801.58 assessed to Jack |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (2009 OK 31) (discipline goals: protect public and preserve integrity; consider uniformity of sanctions)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Gaines, 378 P.3d 1212 (2016 OK 80) (failure to supervise nonlawyer enabling unauthorized practice violates ORPC)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Moody, 394 P.3d 223 (2017 OK 30) (elements rendering conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Hill, 281 P.3d 1264 (2012 OK 66) (public censure for supervisory failures and attendant misconduct)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Martin, 240 P.3d 690 (2010 OK 66) (public reprimand where lawyer failed to supervise paralegal who practiced without authorization)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan, 84 P.3d 710 (2003 OK 80) (suspension for extensive supervisory failures and related misconduct)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 37 P.3d 763 (2001 OK 69) (discusses conduct prejudicial to administration of justice)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Holden, 895 P.2d 707 (1995 OK 25) (Oklahoma Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction over bar discipline and de novo review)