State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Soderstrom
2013 OK 101
| Okla. | 2013Background
- This is an attorney disciplinary proceeding under Rule 7 against Respondent Nathaniel K. Soderstrom.
- Respondent pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance and received an eight-year sentence with DOC, deferred pending successful completion of Drug Court.
- An interim suspension was issued on December 3, 2012, and a mitigation hearing was held February 4, 2018 with a report issued March 27, 2018.
- The PRT found two misconduct incidents: December 17, 2012 (drug use in proximity to methamphetamine) and February 18, 2018 (drug use while in Drug Court, including Percocet without prescription).
- The Respondent has a long history of substance abuse but asserts ongoing sobriety efforts and participation in recovery programs.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court, after de novo review, suspended Respondent for two years and one day, and ordered costs of $1,223.75, with reinstatement conditioned on sobriety and continued treatment participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conduct violated Rule 8.4(b). | Soderstrom's felony conviction and drug-relapse violations show dishonesty and unfitness. | Soderstrom emphasizes rehabilitation efforts and sobriety programs. | Yes; misconduct established and two years and one day suspension imposed. |
| Whether the record supports de novo review. | Record adequate for independent review; mitigation hearing and PRT report provide essential facts. | Record insufficient to support independent determination? | Record adequate for independent, de novo review. |
| Conditions for reinstatement and costs. | Discipline serves to protect the public; costs must be recovered. | Reinstatement conditioned on Rule 11 compliance and ongoing sobriety. | Reinstatement conditioned on continued sobriety and program participation; respondent to pay costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Albert, 163 P.3d 527 (2007 OK 31) (constitutional responsibility for licensure and discipline; de novo review standard)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 127 P.3d 600 (2005 OK 91) (de novo review of disciplinary matters; standard of review)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (1992 OK 164) (necessity of adequate record for disciplinary inquiry)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Burns, 145 P.3d 1088 (2006 OK 75) (adequacy of record for independent review; seriousness of misconduct)
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Briery, 914 P.2d 1046 (1996 OK 45) (reinstatement considerations and required program participation)