*1 Oklahoma, rel., ex STATE OKLA- ASSOCIATION, BAR
HOMA Complainant, BRADLEY, Respondent. Kenneth S.C.B.D. No. 3303. Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
July 1987. Rehearing Granted Part and Denied
in Part Nov.
II
COUNT respondent accepted employment
The in personal injury agreed suit. An settle- ment of was reached. The check $5000.00 jointly respondent made out to was his Respondent client. indicated that he would through his run the check trust account. his client a check in He issued the amount $3,333.33 and the check was returned stamped bank and the insufficient funds. alleges II Therefore Count conversion of respondent. the client’s funds the
III COUNT
Respondent
represent
was hired to
compensation
in
individual
a worker’s
ac-
lump
payment
There
sum
tion.
was
$19,257.00. The draft was made out
to
Respondent
respondent and to his client.
again
deposit
indicated
that he needed to
Respondent
same in his trust
the
account.
percent
was entitled to 20
of the amount of
Respondent
paid
the
claim check.
$8,000.00
Respondent
in cash
his client.
$7,086.00
issued the client a check for
then
stamped
was returned
“Insufficient
which
pressed
remaining
Funds.” When
owed, respondent
told the client
proceeds
Anderson,
Counsel,
$7,000.00
Lynn
pri-
K.
Gen.
Okla-
spent some
in a
that he had
City,
complainant
homa
Oklahoma
transaction and that
vate real estate
to the ac-
money had not been returned
Assn.
prosecution
count. As a result
Tulsa, respondent
Bradley,
Kenneth E.
County
in Tulsa
was commenced
pro se.
crime of Em-
respondent pled guilty to the
CRF-85-466,
Trustee,
in
bezzlement
PER CURIAM:
Respon-
matter.
connection with the same
one
a deferred sentence and
dent received
complaint
A
count
was filed
three
probation
he had made restitu-
year
after
Bar Association
the re-
Oklahoma
Respondent has admitted
tion to his client.
31,
spondent
alleging
on October
allegations
response
truth
following:
III
Bar Association. Count
the Oklahoma
fund.
alleges conversion of a client’s
also
I
COUNT
HEARING
respondent
August
of 1977
was em-
agreements ployed
prepare
four trust
hearing
on Feb-
The matter came on
respondent was named trustee.
which
May
ruary
1986 and also on
$60,000
years
next four
a total of
Over the
presented its evidence
The
deposited
the four trusts.
was
declined to offer evidence.
respondent provided
respect
and ’79
annual status
The Trial Panel
found with
fiduciary
agreement.
reports
required
as
I
had a
under
Count
that
his refusal and
respondent wholly
duty
Thereafter
failed and
to account and that
reports.
account was a willful breach
refused to
annual status
failure to
duty
Respondent argues
such
breach
that
that
willful
of a
the Tri-
because
fiduciary duty adversely
reflects
his fit-
report
al Panel
approximately
filed
practice
ness to
law.
Panel found that
days
hearing
from
conclusion of the
violated DR 1-
appears
request
and there
no
or order
102(A)(6).
extension,
jurisdic-
court has lost
tion of this matter.
cites no
II,
respect
Count
With
Panel
support
provisions
authority
position.
of his
that all
found
relied
*3
1-102(A)(1), (4)
complaint,
(6),
the
DR
and
Although there is not an Oklahoman case
(3)
9-102(A)
7-101(A)(2)
(B)
DR
DR
and
and
directly
that
the
addresses
issue of the
Governing
1.04
and Rule
of the Rules
Disci-
failure
file
the
day period
within
30
plinary Proceedings have
violated
been
and
by
without an extension of time
Chief
the
grounds
professional
that
there were
for
Justice,
the
Oklahoma Bar As
discipline
provision.
under each
sociation directs our attention to certain
respect
to Count
III
the
With
Panel
dealing
delay
cases
with the issue of
in
respondent’s
found that
conduct was in vio- disciplinary proceedings.
ex
State
rel.
of all
by
lation
the subdivisions relied on
Lowe,
OBA v.
G.
(Okl.
Bill
P.2d 1361
1-102,
1-101,
complaint
the
of DR
DR
DR 1982)
by
this Court addressed the
Mr.
claim
and
of
9-102
Rule 1.04
the Rules Govern-
Lowe
disciplinary proceedings
that
should
ing
Therefore,
Disciplinary Proceedings.
be dismissed
him on the
of
basis
the
of
recommendation
the Trial Panel was
improper
jurisdiction
procedure
and
be
that the
be
from
disbarred
the
long
conducting
cause of
delay
the
the
practice of law and his name be stricken
trial. This court stated:
the
attorneys
from
roll of
of the State of
condone,
decision,
“We do not
this
Oklahoma.
unjustified delays
length.
of this
How-
Respondent puts
certain
forward
ar
ever,
any proof
in the absence of
of even
guments in opposition
findings
to the
and
prejudice,
public
minimal
the
interest
recommendation
the
of
Trial Panel. His
practice
the
outweighs any
ethical
of law
proposition
first
is that this court has lost
Id. at
blind
procedure.”
devotion to
jurisdiction
argument
of this matter. This
predicated
hearing
the fact that
Brandon,
before
Trial Panel
ex
was concluded on
rel. OBA v.
May
report
1986. The
of the Trial
(Okl.1969)
P.2d 824
this Court stated:
31, 1986,
July
approxi
Panel was filed on
consistently
“This Court has
held
mately
days
the hearing
from
date
proceedings
inquiries
disbarment
are
6.13,
Governing
concluded. Rule
Rules
courts,
protection
public
of the
Disciplinary Proceedings states:
profession,
and the
and that
the strict
“Report
thirty
Trial Panel. Within
procedure
rules of
should be relaxed to
(30) days after the
conclusion
hear-
attorney’s
the end that
fitness to
ing, the Trial Panel shall file with the
profession
continue
a
should be deter-
of
Clerk
Court a written
legal
mined on the
and ethical merits.”
report which
contain
Trial
shall
Pan-
Id. at P.2d 828.
findings
pertinent
el’s
of fact on all
is-
respect
jurisdiction
With
to the
of this
(including
sues and conclusions of law
1.1,
discipline
lawyer,
court
of
Rule
as to discipline,
recommendation
if such
Proceedings
Disciplinary
indicated,
is found to be
and a recommen-
states:
as to
dation
whether
the cost of the
investigation,
record
jurisdiction.
“Declaration
This court
imposed
should be
on the
possesses original
declares that
it
dent),. ...”
jurisdiction in
exclusive
all
in-
matters
volving
day period
persons
admission
may
practice
referred to
above
state,
only by
good
extended
Chief
law in
Justice
this
cause, any
persons
and all
cause shown.
licensed to
Oklahoma_”
(Em-
There are numerous cases which stand
law in
practice
added).
proposition that
misconduct
phasis
justify
member of the Bar
order to
disci-
provide guidelines for
Although the rules
plinary action need not occur while the
failure
conducting disciplinary proceedings,
relationship
attorney
and client exist.
would not
these to the letter
to follow
We find
as trustee
inwas
find
jurisdiction.
divest this Court
fiduciary relationship with the beneficiaries
although
disapprove of
therefore that
we
of the trust and his failure to account and
did not
delay,
delay
in and of itself
such
monies to them
demand
jurisdiction of this mat-
divest this court of
place him in
would
clear violation of Rule
ter.
1.4(b)
(c).
proposition
The second
advanced
issue of the
is that
complains
also
of cer
accounting
purview
not within the
objections
tain instances where his
to the
court
the Oklahoma Bar Association
*4
evidence
overruled. Particularly
were
he
discipline him. He maintains that the
points
testimony
to the
which was intro
authority
no
OBA and the Trial Panel had
duced to the effect that
had
copy
a
of
to order him to
them with
charged
by
been
with embezzlement
trust
private
accountings in certain
trusts.
County
ee in the District Court in Tulsa
Respondent had drafted four trust doc
31, 1985, CRF-85-466,
June
State v. Ken
the trustee of the four
uments and became
Bradley.
neth E.
The
had en
$60,000.00.
as a result
trusts and
received
plea
tered a
of nolo contendere on March
pri
He indicates that because these were
13,
judgment
1985 and at that
time
vate trusts that this is none of the Bar’s or
period
sentence was deferred for a
of one
as to whether or not
this Court’s business
he
year. He states that because
was al
provided
accounting.
he
an
Rule 1.3 of the
off the deferred sentence
lowed to come
Proceedings
Disciplinary
plea
and withdraw his
and the case was
dealing
contrary
with
acts
dismissed,
charge
not admissible.
was
prescribed standards of conduct states:
points
recent
complainant
The
out that we
any lawyer
any
by
“The commission
of
ly allowed such evidence in State ex rel.
contrary
prescribed
act
standards of
Wood,
SCBD 3263.
OBA v. Andrew
conduct,
pro-
either in
of his
the course
also cites
Plaintiff
Emslie
of
otherwise,
capacity,
fessional
or
which
210,
Cal.Rptr.
California,
Cal.3d
bring
reasonably
act would
be found to
(1974),
175,
H35 concurring. 424 of Justice Summers as In all Myers, v. Association Oklahoma Rehearing respects im- other the Petition for (Okl.1967) this court wherein P.2d 975 denied. of disbarment for discipline posed respon- funds of clients’
conversion C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., attorneys. Bishop DOOLIN, In dent guilty HODGES, WILSON, found to have been KAUGER attorney was and SUMMERS, JJ., client to a settle- the name of his concur. forging nonprobate in connection with ment check OPALA, JJ., LAVENDER proceeds to his depositing matter dissent. Additionally, respon- account. personal commingled to have J., also found SIMMS, disqualified. dent was probate matter separate in a funds estate funds to his converted those
and to have respon- Myers and benefit. own use finding after a attorney was disbarred dent commingled estate funds and he had property on the ba- encumbered estate probate from the of a falsified order sis funds from the note and had used court OF FAIR SCHOOL FINANCE COUNCIL partially for property secured the estate INC., OKLAHOMA, cor Oklahoma purposes. Myers his own al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, poration, et argument that the heir presented the dent with the “ar- the estate was satisfied Bishop Myers, we rangements.” As Oklahoma; George Nigh, Gov STATE of proper discipline find disbarment to be the Oklahoma; Leslie ernor State in this case. Fisher, Superintendent of Pub R. Bradley order that Kenneth Instruction; of Edu lic State Board from the and his name stricken disbarred Mace, cation; Shackelford, Harry Jack attorneys. proceed- The costs of the roll of Sanders, Wright, Seay R.E. Dr. C.B. ing in the amount $1811.09 *6 Collins, Carleton, members and E.L. They by Bradley. are to be shall be borne Education; and Leo Board of the State opinion paid thirty days within after this Winters, of Okla Treasurer final. becomes homa, Defendants-Appellees, HARGRAVE, DOOLIN, C.J., V.C.J., HODGES, KAUGER 1 of Independent District No. School
SUMMERS, JJ., Oklahoma, al., concur. County, et Alfalfa Intervenors-Appellees.
OPALA, J., part, concurring in No. 56577. dissenting part, with whom LAVENDER, J., joins. I would hold of Oklahoma. Court plea as well as both a nolo contendere deferring 1987. expunged Nov. order judgment-and-sentence are inadmissible Nov. As Corrected proceedings. disciplinary bar WILSON, J., part, concurs in ALMA part.
dissents SIMMS, J., disqualified. ORDER
CORRECTION Rehearing granted Petition for correctly purpose limited show vote