*1 OK 84 STATE of Oklahoma OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
BAR Gregory ROBB, Respondent. Mark
SCBD No. 4219. Court Oklahoma. Hubbard, Counsel,
Janis Assistant General City, Oklahoma Complainant. Respondent appearing. WILSON, ALMA Justice: complainant, 1 The Oklahoma Bar As- (Bar Association), charged
sociation
Robb,
spondent,
Gregory
Mark
with three
respond,
counts of failure to
after numerous
attempts
to allow the
to answer
grievances by
formal
three of the
complainant
dent’s clients. Even after the
complaint,
filed its
took no
hearing,
action. On the date set for the
Professional
Tribunal heard
present,
evidence without the
convincing
found based
clear and
evidence that
had violated
8.1(b)1
mandatory provisions
of Rule
the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Con-
duct,
Governing
and Rule 5.22 of the Rules
Disciplinary Proceedings.
report
In its
findings of fact and conclusions of
Professional
Tribunal recom-
day suspension.
mended a two
and one
¶ 2 In
Count I of the
reported
that it received a writ-
from Jill S. Erickson
8.1(b) provides
response containing
that a
in connec-
must make a written
a "full
disciplinary
tion with a
matter shall not “know-
and fair disclosure of all the facts and circum-
ingly
fail
lawful demand for
pertaining
lawyer's
stances
...
[a]
information from
ty_”
duct,
authori-
alleged
misconduct....
The failure of
Oklahoma Rules of Professional Con-
twenly
to answer within
after service of
O.S.1991,
1, app.
ch.
3-A.
grounds
...
for disci-
pline.”
governing Disciplinary
Rules
Proceed-
provides
2. Rule 5.2
that after the General Coun-
ings,
1-A.
copy
sel to the Bar Association files and serves a
grievance upon
*2
12,
respon-
neglect.
The
January
grievance was also
neglect.3 On
respondent
the
1996,
responded
inquiries
had not
ad-
the Office
dent
respondent
requesting
a
to the
grievance
mailed
letter
him
the
dressed to
within two weeks.
grievance
to the
an answer
County Bar
from the Tulsa
Association.
17,1996,
January
the letter was returned
respon-
sent a letter to the
Bar Association
“attempted, not
envelope marked
advising him to
dent’s current roster address
20,1996,
February
of
known.” On
response
grievance
to the
make a written
letter,
mailed another
Counsel
the General
before,
twenty days.
envelope
As
respondent
failed to file a written
returned,
“moved, left no ad-
was
marked
twenty
grievance
within the
6, 1996,
dress.” On June
the Office
Rules Gov-
by Rule 5.2 of the
allowed
Counsel mailed a letter
General
Proceedings. The next
erning Disciplinary
mail,
receipt
requested, but
it was
return
letter was sent certified
marked,
sender, unclaimed.” The
“return to
15, 1996,
it
March
was
requested on
respondent
again personally served with
was
“moved,
envelope
returned with the
marked
26, 1996,
subpoena
a
duces tecum on June
1, 1996,
April
left no address.” On
that he
at the Oklahoma
requiring
served with a sub-
spondent
3, 1996,
Wednesday,
Bar
on
at
Center
requiring
that he
poena
tecum
duces
respondent
9:30 a.m. The
Tuesday,
Bar
on
the Oklahoma
Center
deposition
day.
his
on that
16,1996,
respondent
April
at 10:00 a.m.
appearance
on
date.
made
¶4
III,
For
the Bar Association
Count
alleged a continuation of the failure to re-
II,
In
the Bar Association
Count
Bar
spond, as in the first two counts. The
written
on
states
it received a
May
a
Association received on
writ-
25, 1996,
Edgar
for-
April
from
Summers
Jr.,
Peeples,
from Manuel L.
County
Tulsa
Bar Association
warded
I,
neglect.5
respondent.4
against
respondent
Like
When
Count
of "350 DIV. FEE” and
Jill S. Erickson stated that on
which includes notations
3. The letter of
27, 1995,
spoken
respon-
April
she had
"64 FILING FEE." The other check is in the
8, 1995,
by telephone
purpose
retaining
February
dent
dated
amount of
ali-
him to collect South Carolina court-ordered
purpose
payment.
no notation
support
mony and child
from her former hus-
appeared
Both checks
to be cashed rather than
3, 1995,
May
band
resided in Tulsa. On
she
who
attorney
deposited
trust account. The
$150.00 to retain his services and to file
sent him
on the reverse side of the checks
endorsement
complained
necessary.
suit if
Ms. Erickson had
number,
stamp
just
signa-
had no
or account
to the Bar Association that she could not contact
ture
G. Robb.” Mr. Summers stated in
"Mark
changed
ad-
because he had
his
respon-
complaint
calling the
his
that he started
her,
notifying
telephone
without
and his
dress
dent in March
but the
neither
cleared her
had been disconnected. The check
calls,
though
even
Mr.
answered nor returned
Thereafter,
respon-
bank on June
answering
messages
ma-
Summers left
on an
telephone
returned her
calls. She
dent never
September
received his
chine.
Mr. Summers
asked the Bar Association's assistance in
respondent,
only message
a letter ex-
$150.00. In a second letter to the
return of her
plaining jurisdictional delay
a
between the Texas
exhibit,
as an
she
also entered
courts,
and Oklahoma
and that
single
a
mother with two
stated that she was
Friday, Septem-
Mr. Summers on
would contact
support,
children to
and could not count on child
supposed
an order he was
ber
support.
$150.00
wrote that
was a lot of
She
receive. Mr. Summers did not hear from
money to her.
October, 1995,
respondent again. By
Mr. Sum-
respondent a letter
him to
mers wrote the
Complainant's
exhibit number 16 contained
money. Mr.
withdraw and refund Mr. Summer’s
County
Complaint
Form
Tulsa
finally
another
on No-
Summers
hired
Summers,
Edgar
R.
which the Tulsa
after he had hired the
being
unable to
Bar Association forwarded
getting
to a
succeed in
to talk
lawyer investigator for the Tulsa Professional Re-
Peeples,
grievance, by Mr. Manuel L.
5.The
third
Complaint
sponsibility
Form
Committee. The
Jr.,
related that
employed
reveals that Mr. Summers
divorce,
County probate
Like the
him in a Tulsa
case.
in a
where
dent on November
clients,
Peeples was unable to
plaintiff.
other two
Mr.
Mr. Summers
Mr. Summers was
checks,
leaving messages
respondent,
even
gave
contact the
two
one in
finally
another
He
contacted and hired
$414.00
November
for him.
amount of
pursuant
gations
he has
to Oklahoma Rules
the Office of the General Counsel mailed
letter to the
at his current roster
of Professional
and the Rules Gov
address, advising
grievance,
him of the
erning Disciplinary Proceedings.
griev
“not here.”
the letter was returned marked
cases,
concerning neglect
proven,
ances
*3
July
Association would violates Rule 1.3 of the Oklahoma
through the
lawyer
“A
Rules of Professional
sent a letter
diligence
shall act with reasonable
requested,
to his last known address. The
client,”
promptness
in
green
signature
with a
for
card was returned
reasonably
keep
“A
a client
shall
Robb,”
receipt,
“Mark
G.
informed about the status of a matter and
Nevertheless,
received
was ever
promptly comply
requests
with reasonable
respondent.
information,”
and Rule 1.15
p.m.,
5
at 1:50
On October
safekeeping
property. But
the re
served with the
spondent appears
have
concern for
to
so little
informing
him that if
and letter
only
ignored
his license that he has
complaint within twen-
he did not answer the
him,
attempts of
clients to contact
but
ty days,
charges against him would be
also those of the Tulsa
Bar Associa
papers
deemed admitted. The
included a
tion, and the General Counsel for the Okla
Appointment
Notice of
of Trial
Selection
homa Bar Association.
Setting
Panel and Notice of
and Notice of
Hearing.
proceeding
was set for No-
8 It would
that the
at 9:30 a.m. at the Bar
practice
has abandoned the
of law. He does
in
Center on North Lincoln Boulevard Okla-
any mitigation
not even offer
for his actions.
City.
reply,
homa
made no
Bar Ass’n v.
State
written.
verbal or
He did not
(Okla.1996)
McCoy,
ings of Trial Panel. As mended this recommendation. McCoy, agree we in- timely pay the costs Respondent must proceeding as a condition of curred reinstatement, pur- in the amount of Governing Disciplin- suant to Rule 6.16 Rules Proceedings, 1-A.6 ary ¶ 10 RESPONDENT SUSPENDED *4 AND DAY AND FOR TWO YEARS ONE PAY ORDERED TO COSTS. C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE and JJ., concur. Justice, ALA, with whom 12 OP Justices,
HODGES, SIMMS, join, part, dissenting part. concurring imposition today’s I concur in of dis- cipline; I would visit on the much more severe sanction.
CORRECTION ORDER
appointment
1 A
of an inter-
motion
preter
expense
at court
was referred to
fund
Appeals
this Court
the Court of Criminal
the recent
for a determination
“whether
1355.4(D)
§
O.S.Supp.1996,
of 22
enactment