State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon, 295 P.3d 17

Moon was before the Oklahoma Supreme Court after Moon I (2012 OK 77) where he was publicly censured with a deferred suspension and conditions; the Bar Association sought immediate interim suspension and later final discipline based on alcohol-related misconduct, firearm use, misrepresentation as an officer, extortion, and assault after Moon I; two incidents occurred: May 19, 2012 ( Logan County) and October 7, 2012 (Thunder Roadhouse), with criminal charges following; the Bar first learned of May incident on August 16, 2012 but did not report to the Court until later; Moon did not participate in Moon I proceedings or in the current disciplinary hearing; the trial panel recommended revoking the deferred suspension and disbarring Moon; the Supreme Court conducted de novo review and imposed disbarment and costs of $2,415.79 to be paid within 30 days of finality; Moon’s conduct included impersonating a police officer, discharging firearms while intoxicated, threatening and extorting a fellow attorney, and threatening to kill or harm the attorney and his family; the Court noted concerns with Bar Association handling but found due process was not violated and emphasized pattern of misconduct in deciding discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bar's delayed notice of the May incident violated Wolfe principles	Moon argues due process was violated by repeat offenses not timely disclosed	Bar asserts proper procedures and that proceedings can proceed despite pending criminal matters	No due process violation; discipline based on clear and convincing evidence of misconduct
Whether the disciplinary proceedings procedurally violated Moon's rights by proceeding before criminal resolutions	Moon asserts Fifth Amendment rights and defense rights were compromised	Bar and Court maintained rights were preserved and discipline was independent of criminal trials	Proceedings did not violate due process; discipline based on proven misconduct, not assertions of privilege
What discipline is warranted given Moon's pattern of misconduct	Moon contends leniency due to alcoholism history from Moon I	Due to escalation and harmful impact, severe sanction is warranted	Disbarment and costs ordered; most severe sanction to protect public and profession

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wolfe, 1997 OK 47, 937 P.2d 988 (OK 1997) (repeat offenses; necessary scrutiny of time-related misconduct in discipline)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Zimmerman, 2012 OK 35, 276 P.3d 1022 (OK 2012) (discretion in disciplinary proceedings; standard of review)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Pacenza, 2006 OK 23, 136 P.3d 616 (OK 2006) (processing of grievances despite pending litigation; policy relevance)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Besly, 2006 OK 18, 136 P.3d 590 (OK 2006) (disciplinary standards; evolving misconduct assessment)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McGee, 2002 OK 32, 48 P.3d 787 (OK 2002) (scope of review; clear and convincing standard)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 2001 OK 69, 37 P.3d 763 (OK 2001) (prior discipline considerations; pattern of misconduct)