STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. FAULK
2021 OK 46
| Okla. | 2021Background
- Respondent Robert R. Faulk pled guilty (Sept. 4, 2020) to felony Domestic Abuse — Prior Pattern of Physical Abuse (21 O.S. § 644.1) and misdemeanor Domestic Abuse — Assault and Battery (21 O.S. § 644(C)); other charges were dismissed; criminal sentence included deferred judgment, probation, fines, and mandated counseling and treatment.
- Oklahoma Bar Association initiated summary disciplinary proceedings; this Court entered an immediate interim suspension on Sept. 28, 2020, and allowed a limited mitigation hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT).
- The PRT recommended a one-year suspension from the interim-suspension date with an additional one-year deferred suspension; the Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension from Sept. 28, 2020.
- Underlying facts: on May 11–12, 2019, after heavy drinking Respondent confronted his girlfriend, became physically violent (shoving, dragging, striking with a towel, choking until she passed out), neighbors called police, and the victim reported being afraid for her life.
- Aggravating history: prior domestic-violence–related incidents (notably 2013 and 2014 allegations and a 2008 incident involving an ex-wife) and a 2015 public-intoxication conviction that triggered earlier Bar attention.
- Mitigation: Respondent presented evidence of traumatic childhood, sustained engagement in substance-abuse treatment and domestic-violence counseling, completion of anger-management work, ongoing therapy, community involvement, and favorable character testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Respondent's criminal convictions establish unfitness and violate Rule 8.4(b) ORPC and Rule 1.3 RGDP? | Convictions for domestic violence are conclusive under RGDP and show unfitness; warrant discipline. | Mitigation (treatment, counseling, character) should limit severity of discipline. | Held: Convictions demonstrate unfitness; violations of Rule 8.4(b) and Rule 1.3 found. |
| Were prior police reports (Exhibits 2 & 4) admissible at the disciplinary hearing? | Bar relied on reports to show pattern. | Faulk objected as hearsay. | Held: Police investigative reports are excluded by statute; Exhibits 2 & 4 not considered. |
| What discipline is appropriate? | Bar argued serious sanction consistent with domestic-violence precedents. | Faulk urged leniency based on mitigation and treatment progress. | Held: Two-year suspension from Sept. 28, 2020 (trial panel's 1-year + 1-year deferred was insufficient). |
| Are costs assessable and in what amount? | Costs of investigation and proceedings should be surcharged. | Faulk did not object to the costs application. | Held: Respondent ordered to pay $2,749.85 within 90 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Givens, 343 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2014) (domestic-violence assaults demonstrate unfitness to practice)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Zannotti, 330 P.3d 11 (Okla. 2014) (serious domestic violence warrants substantial suspension)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Demopolos, 352 P.3d 1210 (Okla. 2015) (suspension with deferred conditions where substance abuse treatment required)
- State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Kinsey, 212 P.3d 1186 (Okla. 2009) (discipline aims: protect public and preserve integrity; consider uniformity and mitigation)