*1 OK 1 REINSTATE- OF the MATTER II, JONES, OBA E. Waldo OF MENT Membership in the Oklahoma # 4813 At- the Roll Association torneys. No.
SCBD of Oklahoma.
Supreme 13, 2009.
Jan. *2 Reheard,
Deborah Isk, Eufaula, Carol applicant. Hubbard,
Janis First Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Association, Okla- City, homa for respondent. EDMONDSON,C.J. Petitioner,
T1 Jones, II, Waldo E. admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 1998, 1966. he submitted resignation his pending disciplinary proceedings to this Court after it was discovered that he had taken from a guardianship account for his own use. approved We resignation his and his name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys by order of this Court on Febru- 17, ary 1998, in State Oklahoma ex rel. Jones, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n. v. 159, 1997 OK 952P.2d 525. petitioner's This is first attempt
reinstatement. He petition filed this on Oc- 22, 2007, tober pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Governing Rules Disciplinary Proceedings, (RGDP), 0.$.2001, App. 1-A, Ch. hearing application on his was had three-member Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, which concluded that Mr. рresented Jones had sufficient evidence in support of his application to meet his proof burden of and that he had satisfied all requirements panel reinstatement. The unanimously recommended petition should granted be and that Mr. Jones should be reinstated to of law without necessity taking the bar examination. The Oklahoma Bar Association pres- did not ent Jones, witnesses but it contends that his evidence did support burden of prays deny we application. I.
13 Recommendations of the Trial Panel, while great entitled to weight, are merely advisory. Matter Reinstatement Kamins, 1988 OK 752 P.2d 1129. This Court does not sit in review of the trial burden reinstatement. cation instead, exer- recommendations; we panel's evidence, in convincing by clear proof, jurisdiction exclusive original our cise shall be prоceedings reinstatement all such evidence. examination de novo through applicant. Page, Reinstatement Matter will such our therefore It is P.3d qualifications *3 stronger proof be- present the record that to ensure responsibility the seeking admission our one than and sufficient complete us is fore be suffi- must presented proof time. per- facts relevant into all thorough inquiry Court's Supreme the to overcome cient original miscon- the applicant, the taining to applicant. to the adverse judgment rehabili- applicant's former of the likelihood and duct applicant the toward sympathy carried Feelings he has of whether to determine tation resti- applicable, convineing- If disregarded. clearly and must be showing of his burden thereof, applicant by the tution, the lack attorney of or being an worthy of is ly that he rel. Okla- ex into con- State be taken party will injured of Oklahoma. the State to an applica- Samara, on an P.2d Panel 688 Trial the v. Ass'n sideration Bar homa us the record that find We 983-984. for reinstatement. tion | deter- independent our to allow is sufficient prereq- that requires RGDP 11.5 16 Rule facts. of all essential mination reinstatement, panel must trial the to uisite toas findings to this specific make seeking reinstate applicant An T4 (1) the possesses applicant: the whether heavy bears of law practice the ment or her to entitling him character moral or she whether is the same which burden Associa- Bar the Oklahoma admitted be the bar from resigned or disbarred any unauthorized (2) in tion; engaged has Reinstate proceedings. disciplinary pending suspen- period of during the of law practice the evi where Even automatic. is not (8) pos- and resignation; sion, or has applicant disbarment the undisputed is dence learning and competency during sus the sesses conduct only proper in engaged in law practice admission affirmatively required es law must applicant the pension, Oklahoma. conform will conduct or her that his tablish member of a required high standards to the pro primary our 17 It is Mat granted. if reinstatement Bar of the judiciary the public, the of interest tect the Hanlon, 1993 OK Reinstatement ter of of take therefore We profession. legal the P.2d 1228. 865 applications passing of responsibility our lawof the the the offense reinstatement severe The more 15 the meet failed previously over must has applicant one who the of the burden heavier serious utmost reinstatement; appli but each standards profession's gain come have determined Associa we that end to the To ness. cation in following factors merits, the own also consider on its must we considered must be tion (1) pres pre the evidence the evidence: the or succeed of will fail evaluation our (2) the applicant; the of fitness of ent cireumstances particular the sented consciousness Reinstate demonstrated applicant's Matter case. individual's disrepute which the P.2d Hardin, conduct wrongful ment of (8) profession; the brought follow forth sets that conduct 11.4 RGDP rehabilitation; applicant's must applicant the extent ing standard miscon original (4) the seriousness meet: after conduct (5) applicant's duct; must es- for reinstatement elapsed (6) time which or that, if readmitted resignation; affirmatively tablish (7) the discipline; removed, resignation since from suspension if experi maturity and character, applicant's will conform conduct applicant's resignation; discipline or time of ence a member required high standards in competence (8) of- original severity of Bar. The Ka Reinstatement Matter legal skills. surrounding it cireumstances fense 1125,1180. P.2d mins, OK appli- evaluating considered shall IL. Oklahoma Bar Association dues and Manda- tory Continuing Legal require- Education T8 The Bar Association and Petitioner en ments resignation, since his and if reinstated joint tered into stipulations of fact and sub only he would need to fulfill requirements joint mitted exhibits to panel the trial year of reinstatement. support of a full complete record. These 111 The Bar Association agreed that in reveal its following pertinent facts regarding investigation it found nothing to contradict the incident which led to resignation: Petitioner's evidence possess that he does after it was discovered that funds were miss good moral for reinstate- ing from the guardianship, a lawsuit was ment, and also that he has continued to keep brought by the guardian successor for a abreast of the law and current developments $47,813.14, claim of and stipulations by par resignation since his by attending 105 hours ties to that action reflected that funds *4 CLE, working legal as a assistant and $37,000 amount of go did not to benefit receiving the Bar Journal. Additionally, ward, but were knowingly by received Peti agreed it had found no evidence that benefit; tioner or used for his surety engaged Petitioner in the prac- unauthоrized guardian $35,674.44 bond for paid to tice of law resigned. since he guardian; successor judgment was en against 112 Testimony tered father,1 Petitioner before and his the Trial and Panel those showed that at the upon resignation, were time of his satisfied pro Mr. Jones very bate of was a Petitioner's well promi- father's known and estate with the attorney nent sale in property Tulsa. that His pointed was to counsel have been inher out that Mr. ancestry ited Jones's prominent Petitioner. a piece of Tulsa history; third-genera- he is a T9 It was agreed further that Petitioner lawyer tion and family his members had been was in compliance with both federal and state important leaders of the community many tax requirements; that he has federal taxes years. For thirty years over Mr. Jones car- owing years 1998-2004 in approxi- ried out that family tradition. He was a mate $84,000, amount of for which he has well-respected attorney with a good practice, entered into agreed payment plan with doing great a deal community work and the Internal Revenue Service monthly serving many However, boards. per- his payments in the amount of satisfy to $704.00 sonal life crumbling around him because his indebtedness, tax with penal- interest and problems; and, of financial words, in his own ties; and that he is participating in agreed his greed, flaws selfishness, ar- payment plan with the Oklahoma Tax Com- rogance, pride and self-centeredness led him taxes, mission for interest and penalties for to become a common thief. Mr. Jones had years approx- 1991-2004 amount of been in with his father passing since $22,000 imately wherein pays he a $219.00 bar; but the time of the еvents in month for 12 subject months possible up- question, his father had retired and was in a ward revision thereafter. nursing home. Petitioner had having been { parties 10 The agreed also that Petition- problems financial for some time. He had er previous received discipline of private indebtedness, serious tax tax liens had been reprimand in 1997 for neglect his in missing placed property on his and proce- collection a statute of claim; limitations in a client's being dures were brought against him. He that no additional disciplinary matters were had money borrowed pay debts, these but pending at the time of resigna- Petitioner's he had again fallen behind and knew he was tion; that the client security fund had not in desperate situation. In a client expended any funds on Petitioner; behalf of came to him to discuss а proposition he had and that Petitioner complied with all received from a bank Nigeria promising greater detail, In journal entry $35,674,44. reflects that Judgments in favor of successor by agreement parties, joint and several guardian against were entered the estate of Peti- judgments were entered surety against in favor of $11,638.70 tioner's father in the amount of and $35,000 Petitioner in the amount against Petitioner in the $2000. amount of the estate of Petitioner's father in the amount of himself change up a needed setting then he realized assistance million $28 hard began to work he life and and his Nigeria,. corporation no defense offered changes. He make those this was realize not did T13 Petitioner believes Petitioner actions. for his excuse opportunity Instead, it as an he saw seam. himself has rehаbilitated he financial his solve that would get ago. years ten he was same explained Nigerians So, when problems. after the long waited so he explained He as a them money to must send he be- to file for period five-year send they could faith show He ready before. he was not think did cause took dollars, wrongfully he millions him a better a different is now he believes account, plan- guardianship from the funds developed his character having person, money from when pay it back ning to deal ability to has the he so that integrity father was him. His sent Nigeria was without problems face adversity and had Petitioner guardian long-time ward's personal light blaming others. custodian-in-fact, due serving as over the control together with growth, testified Petitioner incapacity. father's pay- through the achieved liability he has tax him the bank his father took himself now considers petitioner plan, petitioner money which ward's withdraw for reinstate- request make this worthy to promised his own benefit. then used profession. ment to arrived. Nigeria never money from *5 ac- [16 about his is remorseful Petitioner he and {14 that testified Petitioner disrepute his acknowledges the He tions. years during the many adversities faced wife legal profession brought on misconduct very They had resignation. following his others caused he and sorrow hurt period long for a He worked income. little friends. family and own including his Palm- attorney Wilma for legal a assistant as wife and his judge, and he a er, now who is Tribu- Responsibility The Professional 17 teaching a funds from some received also Peti- support of in letters nine nal received and continue began, they ministry which to his generally attesting application, tioner's similar overcome fitness, help for his others remorse operate, and ethical moral homeless They were problems. character responsibility acceptance and misconduct had house as their time writers, a considerable Wil- of those Three his actions. satisfy judg- by agreement sold been Tulsa Judge of Palmer, District Special ma any to whether as questioned Dodson, ments. When attorneys, William County, and two pro- after remained outstanding balance person in Frasier, also testified Jr., Jim and judgments, paid on were the sale ceeds of of Petitioner's support panel in at- no been there had him known testified they had Petitioner stating application, had a nor balance on a collect tempt resigna- of his were аware years and many Ultimately, Peti- renewed. been judgment Petitioner They believed the cause. tion and He ex- everything. wife lost and his misconduct, tioner has that he from his had learned things hap- many painful it; that while plained by also and embarrassed humbled been a time, it nevertheless during that pened actions for his responsibility he takes that growth personal tremendous period of very remorse- and is consequences their his own about life and him about learning for hard through his that They believed ful. ex- Petitioner integrity. indeed become he has difficulties work and to work intention desire pressed mis- make such would who person better help others Lawyers Helping Lawyers practice morally fit that he again; takes prob- to character due in trouble are readmitted, who be an would he if law he will be doing so in He believes lems. Peti- They testified profession. to the asset as community as well legal to the to add able and his the law kept abreast has tioner the individuals. satisfactory. lives of current are skills legal not hesi- they would attorneys stated Both got he that when recounted 15 Petitioner of- in their working Petitioner to have tate recognized first time it was in trouble Peti- seen he had testified Dodson fiees. Mr. He character. in his major flaws had person tioner tell a who asked previously Petitioner opinion, set forth in this Petitioner legal advice that he was longer lawyer no great submitted deal of evidence con- give advice, and could not legal that he had cerning qualifications for reinstatement. resigned practice from the of law because he This evidence is stronger prоof qualifica- wrongful committed a act. tions than is from a appli- first-time cant from whom the require rules that he or 1118 Mr. Dodson also testified that he had she good "shall have character, due represented regard Petitioner in judg- respect and fitness to ments entered family home that law," but demand no of same. Rules was to have petitioner's inheritance. Governing Admission Law, to the Practice of explained He the house was sold 0.9.2001, App. Ch. Section 1. agreement pay order judgments securing the debts from proceeds; 1 22 particular Under the facts and cireum- proceeding was not one foreclosure. Mr. case, stances of this agree we with the ree- Dodson stated that to the best of his knowl- ommendation of the Responsi- Professional edge those entirely were satisfied bility Tribunal that Petitioner has satisfied proceeds, and that he had never re- requirements all for reinstatement and his ceived notice of the existence of unpaid petition granted. should be balance. Therefore, petition of Waldo E. 119 Additionally, the CPA who worked Jones, II, for reinstatement to membership with Petitioner to straighten out the latter's in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the problems tax testified panel, before the stat- Attorneys Roll of is GRANTED and Petition- ing he believed Petitioner to be an honest er is reinstated to the of law in with a heart and who has Oklahoma. Costs the amount of $908.32 learned from his mistakes. He stated he are to paid by Petitioner within ninety would problem have no in requesting legal days from the opinion date this becomes assistance from Petitioner and would refer *6 final. others to him. EDMONDSON,
1 24 C.J., HARGRAVE, KAUGER, TIL WATT,REIF, JJ.-Cоneur. 120 We are concerned about Petition TAYLOR, 1 V.C.J., 25 WINCHESTER, J.- original misconduct, er's beyond and it is Dissent. question transgression that his was one of OPALA, 1126 J.-Disqualified. great seriousness. do agree We not with the Bar that this one outweighs factor the cumu COLBERT, 27 Voting. J.-Not lative factors weighing in support of his rein TAYLOR, statement. V.C.J., contrary, To the with whom as found Panel, Trial WINCHESTER, joins, J. Petitioner's clearly evidence dissenting. convincingly shows that he has carried his 1 1 II, Waldo E. Jones is reinstate heavy proof; burden of he has met pre ment to of law after victimizing requisites for reinstatement and affirmatively people. two The first vietim was Jones' own shown that his future conduct will conformto incapacitated father whom got to with high required standards of a member of money draw from a ward's accounts for the Bar. Jones' benefit.1 The second victim was the 121 Neither persuaded are we incapacitated ward, Flake, whose Bar's additional contention that Petitioner's Jones took for his own benefit. Jones has application "has not stronger demonstrated been less than honest and candid with the qualifications than one seeking ad- (PRT) Professional Responsibility Tribunal mission to the bar for the first time." As and, and with this Court bringing after disre- ability 1. The to have his father commit the actual guardian moved as when his father became inca- withdrawal of may Mr. Flake's funds account for pacitated. unexplained failure to have his father re-
915 5 applicants. all required for name, exploitedit is check has record family's pute 0.8.2001, 150.9; § 12; § 74 O.8.Supp.2008, acknowledging that While benefit. his own (2)(b), 4, § RGAPL. see in our deci part play not should sympathy Governing Disci reinstate, Rules see to sion upon for admission applications T4 The 0.98.2001, (RGDP), ch. 5 Proceedings pline pream- upon motion examination 11.4; rel. Okla. ex 1-A, State rule app. applicant of informs the RGAPL to the ble ¶11, P.3d Hird, 2008 OK v. Ass'n They provide: duty candor. this PRI's and 535, 540, played he has to bar for admission applicant Each is evidence Because sympathies. Court's full, and make be candid duty to chicanery so continues that Jones responses and disclo- accurate careful this Court's compromise will application of the phases in all sures respectfully dis I public, protect duty to must applicant Each process. admission sent. It fully inquiries. all respond give either applicant proper BURDEN I. EVIDENTIARY sketchy description of or highly selective APPLICANT A NEW ON reflecting events past evidence, I feel {2 addressing the Before to the bar.... admission qualifications to be I consider what address compelled Board, RGAPL; http://www. Preamble, opinion. in the Court's incorrect statement They warn: okbbe.com/applications.aspx. the Court opinion, 21 of the paragraph At may this applicant violates who "An pro- must applicant a first-time states bar." Pream- admission denied character, due "good moral proof of no vide Board, RGAPL; http://www.okbbe.com/ ble, fitness respect added). (emphasis applications.aspx application understanding An law." admission for first time falla- necessary understand process following to answer OBA is this statement. cy of Request. Report the Character questions on 12 of the Oklahoma Title section disbarred, you been ever A. Have "exclusive grants Statutes censured, repri- or otherwise suspеnded, upon qualifica authority pass power attorney? as an disqualified manded admis applicants all and fitness tions of Okla No [_] in the State Yes practice law []] sion § A12. O.8.Supp.2003, homa." subject of you ever B. Have *7 practice the to admission seeking first-time grievances or complaints, any charges, motion, Oklahoma, by exam or of law informal) concerning your (formal or the Okla application a verified must file any including attorney, as an conduct (OBA). Govern Rules Bar Association homa pending? now Law Practice Admission ing [_] [_] No Yes 2, 5, 1, 0.$.2001, app. rules (RGAPL), ch. Bar 4, 2; Board § Oklahoma § which any bond on surety on any Has 18. (Board), http:;//www.okbbe.com/ Examiners required to principal been you were 2009). (last Jan. visited applications.aspx your behalf? any pay college gradua submitting a In addition a student photo, and a recent No tion certificate Yes [] [-] must submit bar exam seeking to take the Request fingerprints sets of two party a named you ever been Have (Charac Report aof Character Preparation any action? civil National Con from the Request) Report ter No [_] Yes [] 2(b)- 4, § Rule Examiners. ference history criminal (d), A national RGAPL. ter_and_Fitness/ (last Jan. StandardO07.pdf visited Charac- Bar Examiners' Board of National 2. The http://www.n 2009). Report Request can be found ter cbex.org/fileadmin/mediafiles/downloads/Charac- 24. A. you Have any debts of $500 practice. ness to § Id. 7. If a final Board or more (including cards, credit charge deny decision to any application is based on accounts, loans) and student which have lack good character, respect due been more days than 90 past due within law, or practice law, fitness to appli- an past years? three cant may not reapply for admission until the Yes
[-] No lapse of sixty [] months. Rule RGAPL. T process 9 The applicants first-time T6 On the Report Character Request, an be admitted to practice of law in Okla applicant is also required to provide the requires homa an enormous amount of evi- names of six references who are not relatives dentiary proof that applicant is of good and are not current previous employers. moral character and is fit practice law. applicant The must aver: "I have read the Onee a applicant's first-time integrity foregoing document and have answered all called question, into either the National questions fully frankly. The answers Bоard of Bar Examiners' report, complete are and true to the my best of by a letter from an member, OBA or in some knowledge...." added.) (Emphasis On manner, other applicant Form 8 of the Report Character Request, the come forth with additional evidentiary proof applicant report must the information and good moral character and prac fitness attach the pleadings, judgments, and final tice law. 7,§ Rule orders RGAPL. concerning rigor This any civil actions in which ous vetting process applicant belies was a party. Court's state proof no is demanded of a first- T7 The Board has power to make an applicant's time character, "moral due re independent investigation into the applicant's spect law, for the practice fitness to law." moral character, respect or fit- The majority opinion serves to weaken our ness to 12, 18, law. Rules RGAPL. application process protects public The publishes Board applicants' names in from unqualified lawyers3 the Oklahoma Bar Journal. See 79 O.B.J. (Jan. 19, 2008). 100-101 requests Board OBAmembers to "examine the list bring II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND STAN- to the board's attention in a signed any letter DARD OF IN REVIEW REINSTATE- information might which influence the board MENT PROCEEDINGS in considering the moral character and fit- ness to applicant for admis- T10 Under Rule 11.4 of RGDP, sion." Id. at 100. applicant for reinstatement bears the burden proof 8 If the Board clear refuses grant approval convincing evidence applicant the to take the bar examination, conduct will conform to 1,$ RGAPL, applicant the high may standards of a member of the bar. request hearing before the § Board. Id. 2. An аpplicant reinstatement must If the hearing results in stronger unfavorable deci- moral char- sion, may appeal acter, *8 respect Court due law, for the and fitness § review. Id. 6. Throughout pro- the law than one admis- ceedings, applicant the has the sion burden of for the first time. 11.4, RGDP; establishing eligibility to 1, take the examina- Rule RGAPL. An applicant present must tion, ie, good evidence of which will overcome this Court's for- moral character, respect due law, and fit- mer judgment applicant the does not 5, 3. Title section 14 of the 2001 Oklahoma Stat- tion the Court is satisfied that he is of provides part: utes character, and has a knowl- competent When applies a edge Supreme to the Court general and sufficient learn- bar, for admission to the ing, he shall be an examined oath of officе shall be administered to Court, by the by him, or appointed commission by and an order shall be journal made on the Court, the under such regulations rules and applicant as that the be admitted to as an may provide, Court touching his attorney fitness and counselor at law in all courts of qualifications; if, on such examina- record of this state. ... According proceeding. guardianship in the prac- necessary qualifications possess guardianship in the filed stipulations Id. law. tice 1994, 11, on March beginning proceeding, disci pending resignation T11 Because 14, 1994, through continuing October to disbar tantamount is proceedings plinary father, through his Jones, or himself either Anton, Ass'n v. ment, rel. Okla. ex State funds Flake's $47,318.14 Mr. of withdrew 368, 364, ¶14, 84, 175 P.3d OK Mr. used for not were the bank which from re who seeking reinstatement $37,000.00 was At least Flake's benefit. has proceedings disсiplinary pending signed was used by or Jones knowingly received by was disbarred who as one onus the same stipu- these agreed to Jones benefit. Jones' re Reinstatement In order. this Court's of taken that he had and admitted lations 39, 34, 851. 115 P.3d Fraley, 2005 OK money. offense, underlying egregious more The at 115 P.3d Id. the burden. surety the heavier stipulations show 14 The pending resigned II E. Jones Waldo 852. $35,674.44 paid father for Jones' on the bond ad continues proceedings disciplinary September claim. On toward the than "more serious nothing is mit that the es- judgment against entered trial court entrust has been money that taking attorney amount of in the father of Jones' tate Jones' seriousness Here the him." ed to award $35,674.44 of the $47,818.14, with fact by the offensive more is made offense $11,638.70 in favor of surety and favor of taking ad pattern court en- The trial exhibited that Jonеs guardian. Mr. Flake's victims, own incapacitated vantage of $35,000.00 against Jones judgment tered 114, 175 id. at See Flake. and Mr. $2,000.00 father in favor surety and in favor of P.3d at guardian. Mr. Flake's as in {12 proceedings reinstatement In judg- {15 that the stipulated The OBA exer this Court proceedings, disciplinary bar satisfied, evidence but no were ments de and considers jurisdiction original cises stipulation supported which tendered proceed in the solicited evidence movo evidence. by the supported not and it Hird, re Reinstatement In ings below. $85,674.44 judg- that of the testified This ¶3, at 587. P.3d 25 at $27,000.00 was surety, in favor of find the PRT's by not constrained However, estate. father's from his repaid in exercises but recommendations ings and hearing presented no evidence there is In Id. jurisdiction. original its dependently addi- made were any payments is not this Court proceedings, Flake, and $8,674.44 from taken tional re but is stipulations parties' bound ever has that Jones no evidence there is for evidence record to canvas quired judgment's responsibility taken State practice law. fitness any payment made has or remaining balance ile, 2008 OK v. Bar Ass'n Oklahoma ex rel. fact, income. assets his own from ¶ 1278.4 82, 14, 194P.3d judg- hearing that admitted satisfied. probably ments were AND JONES THE EVIDENCE III. follows. as testified 1 16 Jones CANDOR LACK OF your judgments, those Q all Have candor neglected 13 Jones through that knowledge, been satisfied giving by improperly proceedings in these sale? descriptions sketchy "highly selective attor- Well, The see. the-let's A [Jones] obscuring the facts. past events" There the sale. paid from were ney's fees has obscured which Jones question fact *9 company, still-through the insurance was against judgments he satisfied is whether now, com- the-insurance remember fa- replaced Jones' guardian who The him. lost, they money recoup $47,318.14against them trying to pany a claim ther filed binding upon PRT or not lations are Court are presented to this stipulations 4. The of Oklahoma." acknowledgment Supreme and contain unsworn Stipu- that these parties understand hereto [tlhe and so all the monies were not-they re- restitution; make rely and to . on stipulation couped all their monies because the which is not binding on this Court. house-they got 27,000 about from the es- 19 There are additional concerns that I tate, once the house was sold and every- have regarding Jones' lack of candor with the thing closed, was so there is still probably PRT and the lack of evidence to support some outstanding judgment. I think the reinstatement. оnly reason gives judgment was in year 19-what was the for not applying for reinstatement at the end judge-19- of the statutorily five-year mandated waiting Q 97 period is "because I wasn't-I didn't know A [Jones] so everything in terms of what I wanted to do and I'm still dealing that judgment. with me as person." We know from the Q Have judgments those been renewed record that Jones was not paying his taxes or collected you? from during the seven-years after his resigna- A No, they [Jones] They're haven't. not tion. It was not until 2006that he reached a renewing-no, they have not. compromise with the Internal Revenue Ser- Q The money that was taken from the (IRS) vice for payment of his 1994 through probate then was-went as far as it could 2004 back taxes and not until 2008 did he go; is that correct? reach the payment current plan with the Yes, A [Jones] ma'am. Oklahoma Tax (OTC), Commission having Q Now, you-let after you me ask this: failed to comply with an agreement. earlier Have there any further proceedings Because of the OBA's lack rigorous advo- filed you to collect judg- those cacy and Jones' lack candor, the record is ments? void of evidence that Jones is complying A Oh, no, [Jones] not at all. with the current IRS and agreements. OTC answers segment this question- 120 Another area of concern is Jones' ing illustrate his evasiveness in informing the testimony regarding the money that he stole PRT and this Court about the status of the from Mr. why Flake and he took money. judgment. Jones testified that bought into Niger- 117 Jones testified that Mr. Flake was ian scam because be money wanted to deal through reimbursed company. insurance with his taxes and that the seam came about The evidence is that the bond cоmpany did in 1992. The record shows his current unre- fully not reimburse Mr. Flake paid but only solved federal tax liability did not occur until $35,674.44of the $47,000.00 more than 1994 and his current unresolved state tax wrongfully took. Even though Jones mis- liability did began not before 1991. His total leadingly testified that Mr. Flake was reim- unpaid state tax liability years bursed, the evidence shows that Mr. Flake through 2004 $7,877.00, was excluding penal- actually only part reimbursed a ties and Thus, interest. in 1992 when Jones funds Jones had stolen from him. became seam, involved in the the evidence 18 It is clear from the evidence that the shows may have owed a small amount Judgment has satisfied, not been yet Jones of state taxes and no federal taxes. stipulated that it has been and beclouded the fact that judgments Jones testified that he needed the were never satisfied. I am not eager so to reinstate money Jones that I he took from Mr. Flake to participate am willing ignore this duty Court's the seam and that he sent the money to examine novo; the record de ignore Nigeria. Although the scam began Court's protect public; to disre record shows that Jones did not take gard Jones' admission and other evidence from Mr. Flake's account until March of 1994 that he did satisfy judgments and at part least of it was used for Jones' It is why unclear the OBA would enter into a when they Jones admits that have not. stipulation that the had been satisfied *10 transac- following expenses. personal occurred.
tions accounts Mr. Flake's from Withdrawals homeless, Mr. Jones' sympathetic am question ] also raises evidence 22 This ques- subject raises more testimony this money from taking was why Jones that he testified it answers. tions than Perry's it into James depositing Flake and destitute homeless were his wife any evi- the absence With guardianship. resignation. time since during part only reasonable contrary, dence between income was time Jones' During this admit- Jones' conclusion, light especially month, exelusive $2,900.00a $2,600.00and misconduct, misappropriated ted Then at some wife. from his any income funds and Perry guardianship James in- receiving additional time, started thievery allow it. This would replacing security payments. social the form of come in unde- to remain Perry guardianship from the began and after until 2006 It was completely burden It was Jones' tected. security started that Jones receiving social transac- of these cireumstances explain the taxes. delinquent federal on his payments of candor lack again Jones' Once tions. spent testimony, Jones from his Further litigate vigorously failure to OBA's possibly monеy, amount considerable question leaves the proceeding weekends month, hotels $850.00 unanswered. home- have been claims to time he during the is inconsistent concerns, ample income less. are other Although there of homelessness. claim sympathetic that, I with while here is I mention the one *11 IV. APPLICATION OF JONES sary. Additionally, implied Otis the BURDEN OF PROOF TO for which conservatorship was created THE EVIDENCE was not harmed because in nursing she was home, for, always provided was incapaci- was applying Were Jones for first-time tated, and was suffering from dementia. practice law, admission to the by either rejected This Court the inference that examination or motion on reciproci- based victim was not harmed and found that ty, he would be candidly answer abuse of trust was harm in itself. This Court questions application the OBA's found that it certify could not Otis' fitness to Report Request Character or risk practice law and petition denied his for rein- being denied admission to the bar. The statement. questions 10, 18, 19, truthful answers to Otis, 24 on 126 Like Report Request repaid the Character Jones has not would negatively reflect that he took from apply- his character. one of his victims. Otis, ing admission, Like position first-time takes the Jones could not that no successfully have further restitution given "highly necessary. selective rea- sketchy description past events reflect- sons that since Mr. representatives Flake's ing qualifications" on his as this Court has bonding company have allowed the allowed him to do in proceedings. these lapse, they are satisfied with payments they Otis, Here Jones evidence, has clouded the received. Like evasive, position been Jones takes the and has not that been honest and the vietim did candid with the PRT and this I Court. not suffer style since his life was unaffected seriously ignores doubt that he victimized Court would al- his own inca- pacitated low practice using first-time father carry admission to the him to out any applicant appears law of the theft. It only had signifi- who stolen mon- ey ward, cant restitution, from a had difference in not made Otis and in Jones is that and was there is no past deceitful about indication that family current and Otis' events. well Having present failed known the local proof community of his and had long practice fitness to law associated with sufficient for a the local first- applicant, time proof similar to family. the Jones' falls far short of the neces- sary to show that he has the moral IN RE character V. REINSTATEMENT OF PATE qualify for reinstatement. 27 It is clear that attempting Jones is 125 The facts In re Reinstatement convince this Court that he has emulated the Otis, 2007 OK 175 P.38d are similar to attorney seeking reinstatement in In re Re- Otis, the ones here. an Pate, for rein- instatement 184 P.3d in which statement to membership OBA, approved this Court peti- had embezzled funds from a conservatorship to tion for reinstatement and to which I dissent- pay personal debts. paid He court or- ed. Pate had resigned pending discipline for $33,062.13 dered restitution to the heirs of misapplication funds, of client causing the paid $6,937.87. an additional arrested; audit client to be funds, misused client concluded Otis had converted causing a client; suit neglected $174,576.00 of the conservatorship duties; funds. misrepresentations made in bank- The OBA Client Security approved Fund ruptcy proceedings; failed to communicate $138,076.00but, claim of because of lack of client; charged fees; excessive funds, paid pro-rated $45,066.24. amount of issued insufficient personal fund checks for Otis repaid Security Client purposes Fund on his client trust account. At $45,066.24 reinstatement. petition reinstatement, time $88,009.76 Otis repay did not difference evidence was that Pate was a rehabilitated approved by amount the Client Securi- alcohol drug abuser. The Court noted ty Fund and the actually paid. amount This family that Pate's was well known in the local Court was concerned that Otis took posi- community long and had been associated tion that no further restitution was neces- with the local of law. Pate
Q21
Flake,
Security Fund
and his
impact on
Client
losses and the
the OBA's
reimbursed
*12
that he
their losses.
about rеstitution show
clients for
lack of candor
out to
money paid
resignation.
unchanged since his
morally
is
€{28
in the
major differences
are
There
the time of
practice law at
unfit to
He was
First,
it
in Pate.
and those
us
facts before
is still unfit to
resignation and
restitution;
Jones
full
made
Pate
appears
law.
Pate was
was evidence
There
has not.
abuse;
drug
consistency in
from alcohol
rehabilitated
131 This Court strives
present
To reconcile
proceedings.
bar
a character
caused
thievery
was
Jones'
decisions,
not,
argues,
majority
similar to
as
with our other
flaw which is
case
overarching
Pate
of
appearances,
all
factor
opinion pronounces
From
abuse.
chemical
Court;
in
local
family reputation
PRT and this
applicant's
with the
candid
apparеnt ef-
family reputation
In an
community
elusive.
has been
Jones
Pate,
in
community.
attorney
to those
rein-
legal
facts similar
fort
candid
honest and
to be both
has failed
allowed to rest on
should not be
statement
similarity I find
be called to task
proceedings.
family
honor but should
in these
family repu-
attorney's
their
own character and
and Jones is
Pate
based on
between
legal
that,
overarching
in
community and
this
I
without
in the local
acts.
submit
tation
my opin-
similarity,
factor,
in
inconsistent with
glaringly
this
case is
community, and
Otis, in
proceedings.
ion,
ruling
to these
In re Reinstatement
not relevant
our
is
Peveto, and in State
In re Reinstatement of
VI. CONCLUSION
Ass'n v. Peveto.
rel. Okla. Bar
ex
is
that restitution
has said
This Court
seriously
very
its
takes
132 This Court
to make
though failure
even
a consideration
rel.
public. State ex
duty
protect
preclude reinstatement.
does not
restitution
9,
Hird,
25 at
2008 OK
Bar Ass'n v.
Okla.
Otis,
at
tution would 11.1(b), that Jones' I submit RGDP. restitution, to- his attitude make
failure to Mr. Flake's and toward this failure
ward