State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCormick
2013 OK 110
| Okla. | 2013Background
- Stephen Eric McCormick was disciplined by the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) on two counts: (1) neglect/abandonment of Melanie Johnson’s personal-injury matter, leading to expiration of the statute of limitations; (2) failure to respond to the OBA’s investigation and subpoenas.
- Johnson hired McCormick after a 2008 automobile accident; she received a $5,700 settlement offer in early 2010, rejected it, and thereafter could not contact McCormick despite many attempts. She paid most medical bills herself and suffered financial hardship.
- McCormick left the practice environment to pursue a business venture (Bedlam Sports), failed to notify client/insurer of address/representation changes, did not docket or otherwise assure statutes were protected, and admitted diminished diligence and uncertain desire to continue practicing law.
- OBA mailed multiple letters and a certified warning; McCormick did not timely respond, failed to claim certified mail, was served with a subpoena, arrived late to deposition without documents, and largely did not cooperate until the formal hearing.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found clear and convincing evidence of multiple ORPC and RGDP violations and recommended a one-year suspension; the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo and imposed an eighteen-month suspension plus costs of $1,948.01.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OBA) | Defendant's Argument (McCormick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did McCormick’s handling of Johnson’s case violate competence, diligence, communication, and related ORPC rules? | OBA: He abandoned the client, failed to communicate, failed to protect the statute of limitations, and caused client harm. | McCormick: Disputed some dates, blamed office moves/associates for missed mail, claimed attempts to handle matters informally and divided attention due to business venture. | Held: Yes. Clear and convincing evidence of violations of ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.4 and RGDP Rule 1.3. |
| 2. Did McCormick fail to respond to Bar inquiries and lawful demands, violating disciplinary rules? | OBA: He ignored multiple letters, failed to claim certified mail, missed document production, and delayed cooperation. | McCormick: Eventually appeared for deposition and hearing; offered explanations about mail forwarding and business distractions. | Held: Yes. Violations of ORPC 8.1(b) and RGDP Rules 1.3 and 5.2 established. |
| 3. What discipline is appropriate for the misconduct (scope and duration)? | OBA: One-year suspension recommended by PRT; OBA asks Court to adopt one-year suspension and assess costs. | McCormick: Asked to retain license; emphasized attendance at deposition/hearing and lack of prior complaints. | Held: Court imposed an 18-month suspension (longer than recommended) to protect public and allow respondent to decide whether to continue practicing; costs awarded. |
| 4. Are there mitigating or aggravating factors affecting discipline? | OBA: Emphasized client harm, lack of restitution, and failure to cooperate earlier. | McCormick: Pointed to eventual appearance, no prior grievances, and business pressures; blamed office transitions. | Held: Court found no meaningful mitigation (no restitution, client hardship); appearance at hearing was noted but insufficient to mitigate; indifference to license weighed aggravatingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rowe, 288 P.3d 535 (Okla. 2012) (disciplinary jurisdiction and precedent on severe sanction including disbarment)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Edwards, 248 P.3d 350 (Okla. 2011) (standard for appellate review in disciplinary matters)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 833 P.2d 260 (Okla. 1992) (review de novo and tribunal recommendations non-binding)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Reynolds, 289 P.3d 1283 (Okla. 2012) (purpose of discipline: protect public and profession integrity)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed, 66 P.3d 420 (Okla. 2003) (discipline principles and purposes)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Loeliger, 127 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2005) (comparison case: statute-of-limitations run but mitigating cooperation and restitution reduced sanction)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bellamy, 273 P.3d 56 (Okla. 2012) (case addressing abandonment/neglect and suspension)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 242 P.3d 517 (Okla. 2010) (attorney abandonment, failure to respond, and disciplinary consequences)