State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Casey, 2012 OK 93

Two companion bar-disciplinary matters involve Johnson and Casey; one complaint against Johnson and the Casey matter include related counts; the suits arose from conduct in a 1996–2000 period and a 2004–2010 declaratory-judgment matter.
The PRT found clear and convincing evidence of violations by Johnson and Casey, increasing Johnson’s sanction to six months and seeking disbarment for Casey.
The declaratory-judgment action concerned whether Atkinson and Rucker ever had a common-law marriage; Casey and Johnson orchestrated a puffed defense to protect certain estates and liens, with Johnson funding the action.
Casey and Briggs were disqualified from further representation in the matter; the Atkinson–Rucker judgment remained binding on Tomecek after intervention.
The General Counsel filed multiple Rule violations against Johnson and Casey (including Rule 1.6, 1.15, 3.3, 8.3, 8.4, and related RGDP provisions); the Court imposed sanctions and costs.
The final dispositions: Casey suspended for two years and a day; Johnson suspended for six months; costs totaling approximately $4,518.49 against Casey and $1,181.90 against Johnson.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Casey violated Rule 1.15 and related rules in handling settlement proceeds	General Counsel asserts Casey improperly determined and allocated liens without notification.	Casey contends he acted within his fiduciary duties and appropriate court processes.	Yes, violations proven; sanctions imposed for Casey.
Whether Johnson violated Rule 8.4(d) in the declaratory-judgment action	General Counsel claims Johnson’s conduct breached fiduciary and honesty standards.	Johnson argues actions were within permissible advocacy and not unethical per se.	Yes, Johnson violated Rule 8.4(d) in the declaratory-judgment action.
Whether the declaratory-judgment action itself was ethically improper or merely handled with error	Bar asserts the action was a legitimate vehicle but flawed by unethical conduct.	Defendants contend the action had legitimate purpose to determine marital status.	The action was not per se unethical, but the related conduct violated rules.
Appropriateness of the sanctions given the conduct	Bar seeks discipline proportionate to violations.	Casey and Johnson argue for lesser discipline given context.	Two years and a day for Casey; six months for Johnson; costs imposed.

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Minter, 37 P.3d 763 (Okla. 2001) (exclusive jurisdiction and de novo review on discipline)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Clausing, 224 P.3d 1268 (Okla. 2009) (nondeferential review of trial-panel findings)
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Scroggs, 70 P.3d 821 (Okla. 2003) (nondelegable jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 4 P.3d 1249 (Okla. 2000) (Rule 1.15 duties re client and third-party funds)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miskovsky, 824 P.2d 1090 (Okla. 1991) (disbarment for misappropriation of funds and misconduct)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Benefield, 125 P.3d 1191 (Okla. 2005) (delays in disciplinary proceedings; due-process concerns)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Maddox, 152 P.3d 204 (Okla. 2006) (disciplinary delays; call to speedy proceedings)
Fraley v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 115 P.3d 842 (Okla. 2005) (informal resignations and OBA authority concerns)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 275 P.3d 183 (Okla. 2012) (concerns about handling disciplinary proceedings informally)
State ex rel. Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 163 P.3d 527 (Okla. 2007) (court’s role in disciplinary proceedings focused on public protection)