State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 2013 OK 42

Christopher Mark Cooley, an Oklahoma Bar member since April 2009, pled guilty to two felony counts: False Declaration of Ownership (pawning a stolen pistol) and Falsely Personating Another to Create Liability (using a false name to avoid arrest). Pleas resulted in deferred sentences (five years, concurrent) entered Feb. 13, 2018, with dismissal contingent on completion.
The Oklahoma Bar Association transmitted certified copies of the informations, guilty pleas, and deferred sentencing orders to the Oklahoma Supreme Court under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) to trigger a Rule 7 summary disciplinary proceeding and immediate interim suspension.
The Supreme Court entered an immediate suspension order (April 15, 2013), gave Cooley an opportunity to show cause and to submit mitigation or request a hearing; Cooley did not respond or submit mitigating evidence.
The Court considered whether the convictions facially demonstrate unfitness to practice law (Rule 7.1) and then the appropriate discipline under Rule 7.4.
The Court concluded the offenses involved intentional dishonesty and deceit bearing on honesty and fitness to practice, and imposed suspension for the duration of the deferred sentence (until Feb. 6, 2018), with reinstatement available under RGDP Rule 11 if the criminal dismissal is obtained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OBA)	Defendant's Argument (Cooley)	Held
Whether Cooley’s felony convictions facially demonstrate unfitness to practice law under Rule 7.1	Convictions for intentional dishonesty (false ownership; false identity) reflect adversely on honesty/trustworthiness and thus facially demonstrate unfitness	No response or mitigation submitted	Held: Yes; offenses involve dishonesty and interference with administration of justice and facially demonstrate unfitness
Whether immediate suspension should be set aside	OBA sought discipline via Rule 7 summary process based on certified court records	Cooley did not show cause or seek to set aside suspension	Held: Suspension upheld; no cause shown to set aside immediate suspension
Appropriate final discipline under Rule 7.4	OBA authorized Court to impose final discipline based on certified records (no further recommendation filed)	Cooley offered no mitigation or hearing request	Held: Suspension for duration of deferred sentencing (until Feb. 6, 2018); reinstatement possible after dismissal per Rule 11
Procedural consequence of deferred sentencing for discipline	Certified deferred-sentence documents suffice as conclusive evidence to proceed under Rule 7.2	N/A	Held: Court may impose discipline based on certified copies; dismissal conditioned on completion of deferred sentence and later application for reinstatement

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990) (some convictions facially demonstrate unfitness; distinguishes offenses that do not)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Armstrong, 848 P.2d 538 (1992) (Armstrong II) (refused broad rule that every felony facially demonstrates unfitness; OBA may proceed under Rule 6 or 7)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Badger, 901 P.2d 790 (1993) (possession offense did not warrant immediate suspension under Rule 7)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Livshee, 870 P.2d 770 (1994) (willful failure to file tax return demonstrates unfitness under Rule 7)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Shofner, 60 P.3d 1024 (2002) (fraudulent concealment in bankruptcy and conspiracy plainly facially demonstrates unfitness)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. McBride, 175 P.3d 379 (2007) (DUI convictions do not necessarily affect fitness; Rule 7 allegations dismissed)