State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hill, 281 P.3d 1264

OBA filed a fourteen-count disciplinary complaint against Hill under RGDP Rule 6 for alleged ORPC violations.
PRT heard the evidence and stipulations; the court conducted de novo review of the PRT’s findings.
Wife managed firm banking; she and staff forged signatures and commingled funds, later causing misappropriations.
Respondent alleged depression and undiagnosed bipolar disorder during relevant periods; he sought treatment and participated in Lawyers Helping Lawyers.
PRT recommended public censure with costs; OBA urged suspension; court adopted PRT with additional consideration of mitigating factors.
Respondent fully repaid client retainers and clients obtained substitute counsel; underlying complaints were resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Respondent violated ORPC rules governing client funds and supervision	OBA asserts violations of 1.15, 1.5, 5.3, and related rules due to mismanagement and commingling	Hill contends shortcomings were due to staff actions under his supervision, mitigated by medical condition	Yes, violations found (diligence, accounting, safekeeping, supervision)
Whether a public censure is an appropriate sanction	OBA seeks suspension or harsher discipline given misconduct	Mitigating factors reduce severity; no intentional harm; treatment ongoing	Public censure warranted with ongoing supervision
Whether costs should be assessed against Respondent	Costs related to proven counts should be reimbursed	Some counts failed; proportional cost reduction warranted	Costs reduced proportionately to $3,869.94, payable within 120 days
Whether mitigating factors affect discipline	Mitigators acknowledged but not dispositive	Depression and medical treatment justified lesser sanction	Mitigating factors considered; discipline maintained as public censure

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 51 P.3d 570 (Okla. 2002) (approval of stipulations where consistent with record)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Stutsman, 990 P.2d 854 (Okla. 1999) (de novo review; discipline appropriate after considering all factors)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1251 (Okla. 2000) (supervision duties; dereliction supports discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Carpenter, 863 P.2d 1123 (Okla. 1993) (discipline aims to protect the public; no harm precludes discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Chapman, 114 P.3d 414 (Okla. 2005) (public censure appropriate where no intentional harm and medical condition present)