*1 Upon pa- nal examination
pers on file after due notice to the
respondent, the court finds and directs that:
(1) Respondent No. Causes
CF CF 96-723 CF 96-4948 County
the docket District Attempting
Court with four counts of to Ob- Dangerous
tain a Controlled Substance and Obtaining Danger-
one count of a Controlled Substance, in of Title
ous violation 63 O.S.
§ 2407. He was convicted and sentenced on 4-year
June 1997 to two concurrent terms imprisonment. The sentence was sus- during
pended probation. a term of
(2) By September court’s order cause, respondent was directed to show response written to be filed or before 15, 1997, why
October a final order of disci-
pline response should be made. No
been filed.
(3) The crimes which stands
convicted demonstrate unfitness to 1-A,
tice law. O.S.1991
7.3.
(4) Respondent stands disbarred
name is ordered stricken from the roll of
attorneys. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n
Armstrong,
All concur.
STATE of ex rel. OKLA- ASSOCIATION,
HOMA BAR GIESSMANN, Respondent.
William D.
No. 4177.
Supreme Court Oklahoma.
ants, properties several which were under parents for The had re- contracts deeds. Hyman a life estate for themselves. served attempting to of close on one those was was to do so properties, but unable because lawyer with title. The problem of a prepared the title believed a prob- probate cure the title was needed to Hyman respondent then retained lems. Association, Speegle, Oklahoma Bar Mike paid 1990 and November City, Complainant. for Oklahoma $1,500.00 April probate. to file On White, Edmond, Respon- for Miller Gloria 1991, Respondent probate Okla- filed dent. County. Respondent did homa fur- probate. Respondent ther on the also failed HARGRAVE, Justice. keep Hyman of his inaction to advised Bar As- The matter. (Bar Counsel), sociation Association/General May forced Hyman was to Respondent, charged the William Giess- has attorney concerning the retain another unfin- mann, Rule a violation of Rule 1.31 and with legal Although it was the ished for of the Rules of Professional Conduct pro- lawyer that a subsequent of diligently represent to and communi- failure pleadings unnecessary, was he filed bate parties submitted with a client.3 The cate 20, 1994, July and on an Order Law of Fact Stipulations and Conclusions Allowing Final Distribution Account and for Disci- Agreed Recommendations with Hyman was then Assets was entered. able Tri- The Professional pline. convey property. clear title to the Re- fact adopted stipulations of bunal repaid Hyman has all of the findings. law its and conclusions $1,500.00plus interest. stipulated record A review of the reveals admitted to conclusions of law to be accurate. facts and 26,1974. During the tice of law on June first has stipulations reflect that Giessmann practice, years Asso- member of the Oklahoma Bar Associ- been a single complaint ciation did receive a ation since 1987, Respon- concerning Respondent. In previous bar disciplined. As a result of these major practice dent lost client and complaints, coupled with the com- declined. This resulted in quickly decline practice from plaint, Giessmann problems Respondent. financial for ninety days. Costs of ¶5 imposed.4 are also From 1987 until the nature of practice changed. FACTS accepted many too cases which resulted in neglect legal of some matters entrusted Hyman’s Cleveland mother died previous him. This resulted 17,1990. July A few months later on March reprimand of a private in the form and a 30,1990, Hyman’s Hyman’s father also died. public censure. Vol. 59 No.48 Okla. Bar quit claim to their chil- parents had deeded Journal, dren, joint Pg. siblings, and two ten- December O.S.1991, 1.3, 1, App. provides: regarding rep- 3-A to make informed 1. Rule Ch. decisions A a client. originally a viola- 3. The Bar Association 1.3, O.S.1991, Rule 8.4. Rule tion of Rule Rule 1.4 and 1.4. 5 Ch. 2. Rule dishonesty, involving (a) A shall a client misrepresentation. about the of a matter and status parties. stipulation of the dismissed with reasonable information. (b) Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, explain to the ex- 4. Rules A a matter O.S.1991, reasonably necessary permit 1-A. the client tent the OBA has not Since received VIOLATION OF RULES OF PROFES- complaints against respondent. additional SIONAL CONDUCT AND RULES
GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PRO- CEEDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS ¶ 9 Rule 1.3 of the Rules of Profes *3 OF THE PROFESSIONAL RESPON- sional Conduct states: “A SIBILITY TRIBUNAL diligence reasonable in hearing foregoing After the at the representing Respondent a client.” not did hearing, tribunal the three members of the act with reasonable in representa Professional Tribunal conclud- Respondent tion of his client. agreed to ed that conduct violated represent Mr. in but his Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Profes- only action in the matter was to file the Conduct, 1, sional (Supp. 5 O.S. Ch. 3-1 papers. initial He and did further in 1995), Respondent the ease. disciplined could be We do not believe there was provided activity actions, sinister in Respondent in the Governing Disciplin- Rules but merely that he 1, taken on ary Proceedings, more than he 5 O.S. Ch. (1995). Therefore, could handle. there was a clear The Bar dismissed a claim of a Rule violation of Rule 1.3 of the 8.4(c) Rules of Profes parties agreed violation. The to a sional Conduct. private reprimand, approved and the tribunal discipline. recommendation for ¶ 10 of the Rules of Profes
sional Conduct “A OF STANDARD REVIEW keep a client informed about the status of a matter and comply with ¶ 7 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Asso- for information.” Re Todd, 81, ciation v. 1992 OK 833 P.2d diligent admitted he was not as 262, we set out the standard of review in he in keeping should have been his client attorney disciplinary proceedings. This Respon Court held: dent’s failure keep his client reasonably informed and to with requests for In attorney disciplinary proceedings this information ais violation of rule 1.4 of the Court’s determinations are made de novo. Rules of Professional Conduct. responsibility ultimate deciding whether misconduct has occurred and what 11 Rule 8.4 in discipline is if warranted misconduct volving dishonesty, misrep found rests with us in the exercise of our was dismissed original jurisdiction exclusive in bar disci- stipulation parties. Upon of the plinary Accordingly, matters. neither the review of the facts this matter we find findings of fact of a Responsi- Professional did not violate rule but bility Tribunal nor its view of the merely diligent credibility evidence or of witnesses are client, keep and failed to his client informed. binding on us and recommendations of a imposed varying This Court has de- (citations merely advisory, PRT are omit- grees discipline upon lawyers who have ted) neglected listing many client matters. A addition, finding against to warrant a of the cases is contained State ex rel. case, a charges contested Busch, Oklahoma Bar Association v. misconduct must be established clear and Additionally, 832 P.2d 847-848. 6.12(c) convincing evidence. Rule in State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association RGDP; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Associa- Thompson, 1993 OK an Thomas, tion v. attorney for, days for 90 909. With these standards in mind we turn among things, failing other his client to a discussion of the charged. adequately misconduct informed. COURT OF THIS BRYAN, Petitioner, Leroy DISCIPLINE Robert behavior, Respondent’s 13 Given private with him that a agree Oklahoma, Respondent.
we cannot The STATE of satisfy goals reprimand is sufficient No. PC-96-884. regard agree with the PRT We violated and find the Count Appeals Criminal of Oklahoma. Court of of Professional 1.4 of the Rules Rules 30, 1997. Oct. facts Based on the before Conduct. Court, ninety-day suspension to be As Corrected we find his hav light appropriate *4 disciplined. Ac twice suspended from the cordingly, Respondent is ninety days period
practice of law day final.
begin this becomes disciplin proceedings costs are be
ary the amount of action ninety days
paid by the within day final.
from the becomes SUSPENDED FROM
RESPONDENT FOR NINETY
THE PRACTICE OF LAW TO PAY COSTS.
DAYS ORDERED KAUGER, HODGES, C.J., 14
LAVENDER, and ALMA SIMMS
WILSON, JJ., concur. V.C.J., SUMMERS, concurs part.
and dissents JJ., WATT, OPALA and dissent. OPALA, Justice, dissenting. longer impose on this would my suspension. For views about be im- proper quantum offenders,
posed repeat see State ex bar Holden,
rel. Oklahoma Ass’n. J., (Opala, dissent-
OK
ing); rel. Bar Ass’n. State ex (Opalo,
Wolfe, 1996
J., dissenting).