State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McArthur, 318 P.3d 1095

MeArthur II, an Oklahoma attorney, is the subject of a Rule 7 summary disciplinary proceeding.
He was convicted in Kay County of felony unlawful possession of cocaine; sentenced to ten years with two years in a DOC facility and the balance suspended, plus 24 months of District Attorney Supervision.
He purchased cocaine from a client he was representing in a Kay County criminal case; he was originally charged with trafficking, possessing a firearm during a felony, and unlawful use of a communication device to facilitate a felony.
The case was resolved by a negotiated plea to one count of unlawful possession of cocaine, avoiding the more severe penalties on the original charges.
The Trial Panel recommended a two-year, one-day suspension from the practice of law; at the PR Tribunal hearing, MeArthur appeared pro se and offered no character witnesses or evidence of fitness.
The Court ultimately held that the negotiated plea and underlying conviction demonstrate unfitness and warranted disbarment, rejecting the mitigation arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the criminal conviction show unfitness to practice law?	Bar: conviction constitutes clear, convincing evidence of unfitness.	MeArthur: mitigation reduces seriousness and reflects rehabilitation.	Conviction proves unfitness; disbarment imposed.
Are the asserted mitigation factors compelling enough to avoid disbarment?	Bar: mitigation factors do not overcome professional misconduct.	MeArthur: factors like acceptance, cooperation, no personal gain, community standing, ongoing abstinence argue for lesser discipline.	Mitigation not compelling; disbarment remains appropriate.
Is disbarment the appropriate discipline for the conduct?	Bar seeks disbarment to protect public confidence.	MeArthur: punishment already imposed elsewhere and concerns about practice impact.	Disbarment is the appropriate discipline.
Should costs be awarded to the Bar?	Bar seeks reimbursement of costs related to the violation.		Costs awarded in the amount stated.

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Armstrong, 791 P.2d 815 (1990 OK 9) (convictions can facially demonstrate unfitness for certain offenses)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (1992 OK 164) (record must support thorough independent inquiry)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Burns, 145 P.3d 1088 (2006 OK 75) (nondeferential review of record for discipline)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Golden, 201 P.3d 862 (2008 OK 39) (mitigating factors assessed in disciplinary context)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Wilburn, 286 P.3d 79 (2010 OK 25) (discipline consistency with prior authority)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Tully, 20 P.3d 813 (2000 OK 93) (discipline appropriate to protect public and integrity of profession)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Raskin, 642 P.2d 262 (1982 OK 39) (licensure public benefit and professional responsibility principles)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Benefield, 125 P.3d 1191 (2005 OK 75) (discipline goals: protect public, deter misconduct)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Stewart, 71 P.3d 1 (2003 OK 13) (disciplinary framework emphasizing public confidence)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Pacenga, 186 P.3d 616 (2006 OK 28) (discipline to deter future attorney misconduct)
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Albert, 168 P.3d 527 (2007 OK 81) (costs and related disciplinary obligations considerations)