State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Kleinsmith
2013 OK 16
| Okla. | 2013Background
- Respondent Philip Kleinsmith faces Oklahoma disciplinary action for professional misconduct adjudicated in Arizona.
- Arizona Supreme Court imposed reprimand and one year probation, with termination upon ethics school completion.
- Oklahoma recourse seeks reciprocal discipline under Rule 8.5(a) ORPC and Rule 7.7(b) ORGDP, plus Rule 7.7(a) for failure to report.
- Arizona judgment and the Arizona Agreement for Discipline by Consent constitute prima facie evidence of misconduct in Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court conducts a de novo review but accord deference to Arizona decisions; Patterson governs reporting failure as basis for discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reciprocal discipline is appropriate. | Kleinsmith's Arizona discipline supports Oklahoma discipline. | Kleinsmith seeks identical discipline or lighter, with due weight to Arizona record. | Public censure warranted as reciprocal discipline |
| Whether failure to report discipline constitutes additional misconduct. | Failure to report justifies discipline under Patterson. | No separate misconduct alleged beyond reciprocal discipline. | Failure to report constitutes additional misconduct justifying public censure |
| What standard governs Oklahoma's review of the Arizona record. | Record complete and sufficient for de novo review; de novo review proper. | Arizona record should be given due weight; de novo review still appropriate. | De novo review with due weight to Arizona findings |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Patterson, 28 P.3d 551 (Okla. 2001) (public censure for failure to report discipline by another jurisdiction)