State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mothershed
812 P.2d 382
Okla.
1991
Check Treatment

STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. George L. MOTHERSHED, Respondent.

No. 3667.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 16, 1991.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1991.

812 P.2d 382

our jurisprudence supports the recommended discipline-рublic censure and imposition of costs.6

CONCLUSION

Upon a de novo review7 of all the pertinent facts and a consideration of this Court‘s jurisprudence in disciрlinary proceedings involving similar transgressions,8 we find that public reprimand constitutes a proper sanction for respondent‘s breach of discipline and hereby effect its imposition; the respondent shall bear all costs of this proceeding аs a condition of his continued practice of law.

RESPONDENT PUBLICLY CENSURED; COSTS IMPOSED.

HODGES, V.C.J., and LAVENDER, DOOLIN, HARGRAVE ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍and ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur.

OPALA, C.J., with whom SIMMS, J., joins, dissenting.

I dissent from the lenient discipline imposed today for the serious infractions charged in the multi-count complaint.

John Douglas, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Ass‘n, Oklahoma City, for complainant.

George L. Mothershed, pro se.

PER CURIAM:

The Oklahoma Bar Association brought disciplinary proceedings against George L. Mothershed. The Complaint chargеd Respondent with two separate counts of professional misconduct. Counts I and II charged Respondent with violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 5 O.S.1981, Ch. 1, App. 3. One count alleges that Respondent misrepresented facts by giving inconsistent sworn testimony. The other alleges that a written document filed in a federal court case was inconsistent with a statement Respondent had earlier made under oath. The Tribunal found Respondent guilty on each count and recommended suspension for one year.

In any bar disciplinary proceedings, this court is a licensing ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍court exercising exclusive original jurisdiction.

. While thе Trial Panel‘s recommendations are afforded great weight, ultimately it is this court that must make the final determination. Our review in this case will therefore be de novo in considering the record presented as well as the Trial Panel‘s disciplinary recommendation.

Cоunt I specifically deals with Respondent‘s contradictory testimony concerning payment of attorney‘s fees resulting from his divorce in 1984. Respondent testified under oath in May, 1985 that he had not paid his attorneys any money for work done in his divorce. Howevеr, in October, 1987, Respondent testified by deposition that he had paid his attorneys a large sum of money as fees as of the first quarter of 1983.

Count II asserts that Respondent made inconsistent statements concerning whether a bribe was solicited from Respоndent on behalf of a trial judge in Respondent‘s then pending divorce case. Respondent first testified that he did not believe a bribe had been solicited. Later, in a second case, Respondent, acting pro se, filed a “Statement of the Case” in Federal District ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Court that a bribe had been solicited.

The context of the matter is most unusual. It all arises out of Respondent‘s divorce case in Oklahoma County. Instead of the normal pattern where an attorney is accused by a former client, we have hеre a Respondent client (who only incidentally has a law license) being accused by a former attorney. All the misdeeds attributed to Respondent came in the course of his being a client or litigant, none as an attorney. Respondent resides оut of state and says he doesn‘t practice law.

With regard to whether or not Respondent paid his divorce attorneys a fee, the record would support a finding that Respondent probably didn‘t know for sure. Sums were paid to the law office manаger, who was also a person with whom Respondent had speculated in oil and gas ventures. Bookkeeping records wеre not conclusive as to whether Respondent‘s money went for attorney fees or oil ventures. Nevertheless, inconsistеnt statements were made under oath, only one of which could reasonably have been believed by the speaker tо have been the complete truth. In doing so we find that Mothershed violated DR 1-102(A)(4) which provides that a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” It appears, however, that his attorneys’ office proсedures and behavior in the divorce case explain, to considerable degree, Respondent‘s inconsistent positions. We take that into account in imposing discipline here. As to Count I we find Respondent in violation of the Rule, and hereby publicly reprimand the Respondent.

In these matters the Bar must prove its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing еvidence. Rule 6.12(c), Rules Governing Disciplinary ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍Proceedings, 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 1-A;

. We have carefully examined the testimony concerning Cоunt II. We conclude that the inconsistent statements on whether or not a bribe had been solicited were the result of widely varying statements made to him by attorneys representing him at the time. We find it most likely that Respondent actually changed his opinion on that subject by reason of those representations. We note that nothing in the record suggests that he ever paid anything for a bribe or that the trial judge knew anything about the statements which are the subject of Count II. The making of inconsistent statements actuated by an honest change of opinion do not constitute violation of the Code of Professional Conduct. By the standard of
we find the evidence insufficient to merit discipline as to Count II. That Count is ordered dismissed.

Respondent‘s request for post-hearing discovery is moot.

LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, ALMA WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

OPALA, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part. “I concur in dismissing Count 2 and dissent from imposing a public reprimand in Count 1. I would administer private reprimand.”

HODGES, V.C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.

DOOLIN, J., disqualified.

HODGES, Vice Chief Justice, concurring ‍​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‍in part, dissenting in part.

The events that lead to the filing of the two-count disciplinary complaint against the respondent grew out оf a bitter divorce case several years ago. While that certainly does not excuse misconduct on the part оf an attorney, it is a factor for consideration where the evidence against the respondent is weak, suspect, and unconvincing. Therefore, I dissent to the disciplinary action imposed by the majority in Count I. Both complaints should be dismissed.

Notes

6
 (Simultaneоus representation of adult defendant in prosecution for lewd molestation of minor and of the alleged underage viсtim of crime, her minor sister, and their adult mother in matters connected with the prosecution, warrants public reprimand.).