*1
wondering whether it will now allow the rein
of in the Bar confidence Association members;20 and it an who failed to
pay through taxes from 1990 1994 demon reinstatement; strating support his lack of character or an who was sus 21
pended following making conviction for
subscribing a attempting false tax return and responsibility pay evade and defeat I attorneys
income taxes.22 Were of the cases,
disciplined in I these would look at the
majority's pronouncement as a statement forgiven"
that "all sins are encour be
aged prepare application for reinstate majority's
ment unexplainable based on the
lax strictures this cause. To allow rein would, best,
statement of the at
undermine our absolute constitutional au
thority regulate or, of law
worst, violate the oath of office which each of uphold.
us has sworn to
(Pacenza
20. Matter
Reinstatement
17. Matter
Smith,
Reinstatement
677 *3 Rossier, Counsel,
Ted D. Assistant General Association, City, Oklahoma Bar Oklahoma OK, complaint. for Watts, OK, City, Charles J. respondent.
WATT, J.:
T1
initially
In what
Rule 6
10,1
but
later converted to a Rule
Rules
Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.
1, App.
proceeding,
1-A
the com
plainant,
Association, charged
Oklahoma Bar
respondent, Gloyd
Lynn McCoy
(MeCoy/attorney), with thirteen counts of
ranging
misconduct
from failure
to communicate to misuse of client funds and
suspension by
notice of
the United States
Appeals
Court of
the Tenth Cireuit
(Tenth Cirenuit)
accepting
appointments
CJA
period
year.3 By agree-
2
for a
of one
Panel,
(CJA/Act),
Report
May
p.
of the Trial
2. The Criminal Justice Act
3006A,
indigent
§
U.S.C.2008
Governing Disciplinary
entitled
defendants
Rule
charged
appoint-
0.$.2001,
with certain
offenses to
federal
[Suspen-
3-A
statutory
ed counsel. The CJA carries both a
personal
incapacity
sion for
law.].
a constitutional mandate under the Sixth Amend-
ment to the United States Constitution. United
Therefore,
respondent.5
consideration
entered an
this Court
parties,
ment of
review,6
pending
upon
resolu
de novo
we
suspension
of the facts and
of interim
order
following
action
notifi
disciplinary
respondent's
re
tion of the
conduct
determine
attorney had been disbarred
rights
cation that
harm
sulting in incurable
to the
upon grounds that
by the Tenth Circuit
retaining of unearned
represented,
those he
prosecu
alleged throughout
fees,
representation
of clients
continued
personally
that he was
of the cause
tion
so, causing
alleging
incapacity to do
while
In the course of
law.
incapable
practicing
legal profession and to
to the
embarrassment
acknowledged
proceedings,
disciplinary
Court,
undermining confidence in
this
of miscon-
multiple instances
4
war
and its members
Association
deceit,
fraud,
dishonesty,
involving:
duet
years
suspension
for a
of two
rants
*4
including
incompetence
misrepresentation;
$4,988.55 in
day
payment
the
of
and one
and
disability;
a
lack
under
accepting cases while
costs.7
communicate; mis
to
diligence;
of
failure
funds;
untimely
filing of
handling
and the
of
RELEVANT FACTS AND
inquiries. The attor
responses
grievance
to
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
suspension
in his initial
ney's actions resulted
practice
to the
of
113
was admitted
by the
subsequent disbarment
United
and
years,
for the Tenth Cir
Appeals
of
the
he distin-
States Court
law
1982. Over
guished
proceedings
in criminal
and
himself
cuit.
Thurgood
awarded the
Marshall Award
sympathetic with and ac
T2 We are
by
outstanding appellate advocacy
the
for
attorney's
debilitating
knowledge the
evident
Lawyers'
Defense
Asso-
Oklahoma Criminal
an attention
depression coupled with
deficit
ciation in 2006.
to his actions.
and their contribution
disorder
T4 In
of
the
en-
Nevertheless,
obligation
uphold the
our
to
program related
tered a six-month diversion
grievance system,
protect
which exists to
the
compassion
before our
public, must come
grievances
by
filed
his clients. The
to three
Barcelon,
(10th
Governing Disciplinary Proceedings,
Cir.
Rules
5
States v.
833 F.2d
896
Baker,
(10th
0.$.2001,
1-A,
1987);
App.
alleged
Anaya
Ch.
are: Rule 1.3
v.
were
through April
March of 2005
dertook from
nondelegable,
16 It is this Court's
span
years. MeCoy
three
did not
responsibility
regulate
constitutional
timely
griev
of the individual
ethics,
licensure,
both
responses were received
ances and when
discipline
practitioners
of the
of the law.
inadequate.
they
incomplete
were either
duty
solely
department
is vested
in this
This necessitated that the
be de
government.9
Our determinations
are
posed
September
following
2009. The
made de novo.10 We bear the ultimate re
month,
multiple
the Bar Association filed a
sponsibility
deciding
whether misconduct
complaint.
count
and,
so,
if
discipline
has occurred
what
is
*5
[5
hearing
panel
before the trial
The
finding
warranted. Neither
of facts of
days
over two
in March of this
conducted
panel
the trial
nor its view of the evidence or
21st,
May
panel
year.
the trial
issued its
On
credibility
of witnesses bind this Court.
recommending
McCoy
report
be sus-
merely
The
advisory.11
recommendation is
pended
from the
of law for two
parties
The
stipulate
same is true when the
day.
day,
years and one
The same
the Bar
misconduct and recommendation for disc
application
Association filed an
to assess
ipline.12
discipline
Before this Court will
an
$4,988.55.
agreement
It
costs of
also is
respon-
attorney,
proposed discipline,
as is the
errant
misconduct must be
with
demon-
Gloyd McCoy,
Sep-
abeyance
Deposition
L.
taken on
involved will be held
8.
30,
part
providing
pertinent
(6)
tember
six
months and that if all conditions of the
pp.
met,
93-94:
agreement
grievances
are
will be dis-
Now,
Q
we talked
in the
...
earlier
discipline
imposed.
missed and no other
will be
your participation
deposition
the di-
about
5,
McCoy signed
agreement
February
on
program
years.
going
version
about five
I'm
Therefore,
agree-
2005.
the conditions of the
you
here. This
to hand
this document
is
expired
August
ment would have
as DIVERSION PROGRAM AGREE-
shown
MENT and it will be Exhibit 26.
I would like
13;
0.$.2001 §
9. Title 5
rel.
State ex
Oklahoma
you
that and tell me whether
not
to review
Combs,
Bar Ass'n v.
see note
State ex
supra;
agreement
you signed
that is the
with the
Farrant,
rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
13. Rule
Rules
1-A;
0.$.2001,
money.
now
intent was to return their
That is
Ch.
State ex
5
Riggs
my
obvious that
intention as it seems
OK
Funk,
rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
2005
427;
Abney does not want the case.'
rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
State ex
Kessler,
32, 23,
¶
A Yes.
1995 OK.
681 respondent spoke post-conviction tion for relief in the state phone a month Stee on the after he was c) courts; he would meet with Baker hired, subsequent attempts all to contact every Wednesday post-conviction until McCoy by phone were unsuccessful. In No application complete. McCoy recognizes complaint vember of Stee filed the with that his conduct constituted mis- point At some Association. subse 1.1, 1.8, 1.4, conduct in 1.5, violation of Rules thereto, quent respondent indicated ei 1.15(a), 1.16(a), 8.4(a)(c)(d), Rules of Pro- ther to the Bar or to Association Stee he Conduct, fessional Supp.2008, 0.8.2001 refunding would be her within a two- $500.00 App. 8-A and Governing Rule period. week This did not occur and had not Disciplinary 0.8.2001, Proceedings, hearing occurred at the time of the before App. I-A. addition, panel. the trial Stee was con panel Baker testified before the trial respondent's
vinced that failure to act nephew any paid her that his subsequent right MeCoy approximately robbed father $2,000.00 appeal his cause and to request file for relief and violated her trust in the legal profession.18 corpus upon habeas relief the affirmance of his conviction. get When Baker could not
Count V-Baker McCoy to communicate regarding with him case, he contacted the federal court and admits that after Aaron Bak- determined that no corpus petition Aabeas felony er's conviction was affirmed on (17) was ever filed. Baker went seventeen requested Baker that he having any months without contact with pursue post-conviction relief in the United McCoy and believes that the statute of limi States District for the Court Northern Dis- trict of Oklahomano later than following run opportunity tations has on for the filing January. May corpus of khabeas After relief the federal forum.19 did not communicate with his client. Baker July
filed his initial Thereafter, met with Baker on COUNT VII-Thelen or about meeting, October ist. At a) currently told Baker that: 13 Patrick Thelen he had not filed a is incarcerat- b) corpus petition; federal habeas he be- ed in facility a federal correctional in Illinois. might applica- lieved Baker benefit from an *7 admits that Thelen retained him to Transcript hearing panel, 18. of contacted-given before the trial at least have me over to an- 23, 2010, testifying pertinent March Vera Stec in something my goal other that-that at: part could have been at least an accomplished, ap- pp. (By Ogden) Q Okay. 82-83 "... Ms. Ms. peal my nephew, something, made on behalf of Stec, exhibit, McCoy you in that Mr. said that know, you for the time and effort that I trusted receiving by $500 would be a refund of June my totally. him and he broke trust You think 5th, happen? 2009. Did that ever know, you can-you you people trust who are No, happened...." A No. that never positions...." in those Stec, pp. (By Ogden) Q 84-86 "... Ms. Ms. to date, you money this have received a order or Transcript hearing 19. panel, before the trial any payment McCoy? other from Mr. 23, 2010, testifying March Aaron Drew Baker in A No. I've No, contact, had no other than pertinent part pp. at 137-38: just McCoy. we said from Mr. what Q Did Mr. aside from that I'll approximately Q elapsed "... So Okay. McCoy, 17 months it, you any look into did he contact further spoke you regard- between times that he with regarding your the status of case- ing your case? No, any way, shape A No.... not in or form A Yes. Yes. and I am about that, heartbroken because I Q your right What's the current status of case get my nephew's wanted in before your-do you any ability now? Is have further appeal time was over and I'm afraid I didn't petition? to file a federal habeas accomplish that and I feel bad because-the understanding my A No. I'm of the that time jail.... man is in filing my corpus expired habeas had (By Ogden) Q Ms. And, Stec, Ms. how do you upon trying get McCoy, ahold of Mr. so I'm right feel about this now? assuming my that all deadlines have ex- Well, very very-I A I'm-I'm-I'm sad and pired. ..." just-it's just crying shame that he couldn't grievance if agreed had to withdraw his he relating to an relief pursue post-conviction money $3,000.00 returned.21 conviction, his paying him not com- the work was April 2008. When counsel hired alternate
pleted, Thelen first XI-Burling COUNT Although the pro se. proceeded then agreed Thelen to with- acknowledges that that he asserts ' 15 The McCoy would refund if draw his Burling (Burling) on was hired Robert $3,000.00, the same. denies Thelen 21, 2008, indepen- undertake an case, respondent promised although the any develop a strate- dent review of his case and fee, not done he has refund the unearned post-conviction relief. He also admits gy for pro- McCoy actions constitute so. admits his $3,000.00 Burling having received 1.1, of Rules in violation fessional misconduct legal work. do 1.16(a), 8.4(a)(c)(d), 1.4, 1.15(a), 1.3, 1.5, {16 McCoy Burling never testified Conduct, Supp. 5 0.S. Rules or Professional App. 3-A and Rule work, provide any copies of did the did not Proceedings, 5 Governing Disciplinary unprepared 0.8. when proposals, drafted seemed 1, App. 1-A. facility him at the where he would meet with incarcerated, the date for Burling was missed McCoy did noth 1 14 Thelen testified rehearing petition on his affirmed filing a that, lies, ing in case and because of his conviction, appear a number and failed to anything he could believe he did not feel Burling an- hired him.20 He also denied that of scheduled interviews.22 respondent told March tinent March tinent just A No. No. I point back some of the work ping kind has he? A No. Mr. him to far as him McCoy-about know, paying here, have a was he was A No. The A No. at that anymore, Q nothing. Absolutely nothing. couldn't believe He told me draw don't recall spin after another. mail, Q Call me "... Transcript Transcript And he has not Did Mr. part part at one of documentation? Q a my your grievance Q product in he even if-he I case, do? No...." point, back the fee talking? thing guess you back next week and then Mr. put it Did Mr. brother or because I pp. pp. paying but for the sake of anything he Thelen, going after another and he or work mean, we Patrick Thelen Patrick hearing hearing 192-93: 196-97: in the only-the something even close to that nothing really didn't guys did-to the to money. My me ever paid working did anything something if I to the effect just mail and attempt that he had done of Thelen that return for before before the trial back, see you he provide you weren't even tell me that back the fee to may do what had only conversation said, he the ever offer to with- testifying testifying to that. it-you contrary, via the e-mails the trial argument, add He lied to me. did not earn? e-mails, I enough. it and it was so brother, Mr. didn't just put that-drop- you try what's the something McCoy's know, it in the one I don't . I think talking to but as panel, he did panel, get asked if you, per- per- You you any big get he it. I pertinent part at March back prepared.... would you characterize Mr. the time-let's which would have been verbally those...." A No written he had done? A which where, primarily and he would call me and sit with me after with those four peal meeting May on and told him about the affirmation ever had meetings after that first minutes review Q have a discuss the Q due six On ... A Transcript May No, . Did Mr. May Did he ever (By deadline and he you? my you paid him? have, my summary opinion to see if we would he sure did not. days but, rehearing, _... Mr. 1st, and this is where he told me he 14th, scheduled a him-and money by myself.... that, and he never seemed to be meetings After rehearing appeared you later. I passed May then all he *8 Rossier) he failed to show had pp. hearing work. We McCoy perform the work for provide you 8th, see, my know, Robert and I could have went else- 161-65: which my nephew were when direct this all the meeting Mr. four of McCoy's unscheduled on which before had to do was he didn't do either of is the meeting Burling testifying is due 20 [HJe Burling, May 20th And he appeal had, way up 20th and from would have been those-three call Mr. stayed only communication and [sic] only I any was affirmed May believe, and most of how trial my to October days Mr. meeting work that May give rehear- 14th to my ap- McCoy would Welch would panel, later, four that 8th me I attorney filing appeal the of his lowed Green's to be to assist with dismissed for other corpus petition.23 prosecute. MecCoy habeas failure to admits his con- required attorneys
duct that contradicts 1.1, 1.8, 14, 1.5, 1.15(a), X-Richardson/Ingraham by Rules COUNT 8.A4(a)(c)(d), Governing Rules Professional (Richardson) {17 Betty re- Richardson Conduct, 3-A, Supp.2008, App. 5 0.8. Ch. McCoy April of 2008 to file federal tained 1.3, Governing and Rule Disciplinary Rules post relief on behalf of habeas and conviction 0.98.2001, Proceedings, 5 App. Ch. I-A. nephew, Sandy Ingraham her John disputes paid McCoy. 19 Green the fee (Ingraham). Although neither of these indi- respondent alleges that he was panel, viduals testified before the trial $3,000, paid paid Green testified that he him respondent stipulated hiring to the and to his $5,000.00 checking from his account.24 A $5,000.00. having paid He admits that been Green's, friend of who handled his finances any application he: did not file for relief and incarceration, during Green's believes that allowed the limitation run on $9,000.00, McCoy given at least some of Ingraham's right file a federal habeas which he received in cash.25 petition; spoke Ingraham; never phone not return calls or did suspension COUNT XII-Tenth Circuit McCoy alleges letters. that he has made a accepting Appointments CJA partial refund of the fee the amount of McCoy acknowledges ap he was $1,440.00. McCoy agrees that his actions pointed by the Tenth Cireuit under constitute misconduct viola- represent CJA26 to a criminal defendant. 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(a) 1.8, 1.15(a), of Rules tion respondent getting was successful in 8.4(a)(c)(d), of Professional Rules Con- defendant's sentence reduced and an filed duct, 3-A, Supp.2008, App. 5 0.8. appeal July of his conviction. On Disciplinary Governing Rule directing Tenth Circuit clerk issued an order 0.8.2001, 1-A. respondent perfect appeal. When McCoy did not comply, subsequent a order COUNT XII-Green instructing comply was issued him to no later respondent agrees Stephen 18 The August than 2006. The com (Green) Green hired him to file a motion in plied days some thirteen later than the or $3,000.00 paid him dered date. did an opening federal court and for his not file denied, services. When the motion was 27, 2007, brief on the due date of request nor did he an extension. On March a notice of with the Thereafter, 5, 2007, Tenth he com- Circuit. did not regarding clerk issued an order deadline, warning possible municate with his client. The al- the missed 1st, $5,000..." meetings he scheduled and never showed .. A again. eight eight I believe more-a total of Transcript hearing panel, before the trial meetings more that he failed to show...." 23, 2010, Greg testifying perti- March Nieto part pp. nent 512-13: Transcript hearing panel, before the trial Burling testifying March Robert Rossier) (By again, Q "... Mr. Once pertinent part p.at 163: question money you how total much do you paid believe to Mr. on Mr. Green's you Q Did then file federal habeas behalf? petition pro se? estimate, going A Just back in an I was calcu- Well, A I filed a-I hired named *9 $9,000 lating, I think around all total. Muskogee, McClure, Oklahoma, and we Jim Q paid McCoy? And how was that to Mr. City in the Western District of Oklahoma paid Was it in cash? just District Court on re- Initially, couple A were a there of checks cently,..." from other sources from other friends and then that, cash, yes, after it was sir. And then the Transcript panel, hearing 24. before the trial payment actually final was a cashier's check in 2010, Stephen testify- March Randall Green regards directly to a final and that was pertinent part p. 103: from Mr. Green's bank. ..." Q right. you pay All How much did Mr. McCoy? See note supra. 684 Thelen, Baker, Richardson and action, McCoy until gave and disciplinary date, gave On him lib- although to file the brief. Bar Association 15th
March and requested an extension respondent multiple opportunities and extensions eral He did not April 18th. granted until was finally noticing deposition. him for a before request an he brief nor did file the then instances, gave did responses he In some McCoy another clerk sent The extension. testimony elicited not coincide with op- him giving two April 2007 order panel in relation to the trial his clients before by May to file the brief first was tions: promises of files and to refund the return filing; and the for the late seek leave 9th and acknowledged respondent unearned fees. The why he not cause should was to show second 8.1(b) Rules and that his conduct violated panel. disciplinary a be referred to Conduct, 8A(a)(c), Professional 5 Rules of 9, 2007, McCoy electronically May 1121 On Rules Supp.2008, App. Ch. 3-A and 0.8. a "show cause he calls filed a document 5.2, Governing Disciplinary Rules 1.3 and approxi- copy was filed A hard response." 0.9$.2001, 1, App. I-A. Proceedings, Ch. Asserting that he was mately a week later. condition, the re- a medical suffering from provides lawyer that a shall 4 24 Rule 8.1 May 21st requested an extension spondent a knowingly make false statement not The opening brief to file an respond to a lawful fact nor fail to material attempted he the document admits disciplinary a for information from demand May defective several file on 2lst was 1.3, authority. Rule the commission Under given he was until June respects. contrary pre attorney act of an errors, McCoy did correct those 2007 to grounds for of conduct is scribed standards anything file further do so nor did he not brings dis discipline. of this rule Violation the cause. provi legal profession.27 The credit on the 2nd, advising July 22 An order issued on pro define pertinent of Rule 8.4 here sions disciplin- a being referred to he was as the violation of the fessional misconduct negligence failure to follow ary panel for engaging in professional rules and conduct again He directed orders of the court. fraud, misrep dishonesty, deceit or involving by July a brief to file corrected Rule 5.2 allows an Instead, following day, requested he resentation. on the (20) twenty days a faced with had been advised although he an extension delays allowed. further would be no containing a full and response file written sus- a corrected brief did not file all and cireum- fair the facts disclosure accepting appointments CJA pended from al respondent's to the pertaining stances acknowledges that year. leged misconduct. misconduct professional constitutes conduct 1.16(a), 8.2, 1.1, 1.3, of Rules violation AND ENHANCEMENT MITIGATION Conduct, 8.4(a)(c)(d), Rules of Professional I-A, and Rule Supp.2008, 0.S. may Mitigating cireumstances Disciplinary Proceed- Governing process assessing considered be 0.8.2001, 1, App. 3-A. ings, 5 discipline.28 When appropriate quantum of VI, VIII, II, IV, XI-Failure to mental or presented physical conditions are COUNTS adequately respond properly of one's mitigating factors for assessment as regarding multi- the General Counsel a causal relation culpability, there must be ple grievances. the conditions and the ship between emotional, Though nduct.29 misco that he did not ' 23 admits disability may physical Woods, Stee, psychological, or timely adequately Raskin, Chapman, Bar Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 27. State ex rel. Oklahoma ¶ P.2d 262. ¶ OK 114 P.3d Schraeder, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 29. State ex rel. Schraeder, 28. State ex rel. Oklahoma 51, ¶ 27, 570; State ex rel. *10 rel. Oklahoma Bar infra; note see ¶ 15, Giger, v. Bar Ass'n ¶ 20, 920; Colston, 1989 OK. Ass'n culpabil respondent primary giver ethical reduce the actors was the care serve to imposi ity, immunize one from it will not his wife and children. He was faced with large medical bills for which there was no disciplinary that are nec measures tion of essary protect public.30 the coverage. insurance McCoy presented proof medical February 30 In under- psychia- his general practitioner and both his representation took the criminal of a client physical from various that he suffers trist Although expected Tulsa. he this relation- along depression and attention ship provide family ailments his with financial re- during present disorder now and deficit lief, Rather, it did not do so. it created physicians Both time of the misconduct. additional financial difficulties and emotional attorney presently incapable opine that the is commuting strain. His vehicle became dis- practicing physical law of his and because required abled and he spend increas- mental condition. away time from home. children, McCoys all 127 The have three McCoy's psychiatrist 4 31 neither require parental unusual levels of
of whom physician nor his testified before the trial supervision or involvement. Their adult son panel concerning physical his mental and epilepsy making and it suffers from autism condition, the record leaves little doubt that job requiring difficult for him to hold a and depression, suffers from attention monitoring. daughters two constant Their disorder, tremor, degree deficit some of limb adopted were from Guatemala and have their pain degenerative back associated with special own needs. However, McCoy's pleas dise disease.31 mercy by appear are Following ten-year counterbalanced what association with recognize gravity firm, to be a failure to Coyle attorney was termi- law transgressions inability his and an ending profession- to take nated 2008. The this arrangement responsibility for his actions. al created a financial strain. years, McCoy operated as a solo For two 132 The blames his lack of by practitioner. he was hired performance variety on a of factors: his Neal, Riggs, Abney, Turpen, Orbison physical condition; and mental his former salary at what he considered a not Lewis firm sup law and assistant and the lack of twenty-five years commensurate with his therefrom; port deep he received his involve experience. McCoy's employment ended in proceedings; ment federal criminal a "Jail January ap- 2008 when lawyer" encouraged complaints house who be by during firm
proached member of the him; against legal and his lack of a longer trial and told his services were no during periods assistant the time when needed. being were filed. He accuses the Approximately eight attempting months after Association of to make two leaving having charges the second firm and out moved his of one with the inclusion of mul home, practice respondent's tiple relating into his wife counts to his failure to hospital diagnosed argues transgressions was admitted to the these were some by how appearance deposi "cured" for a survived, sepsis. Although she she was required left a debilitated state and subse- necessary by cooperati tion made his lack of Although McCoystipulated on.32 to acts of eye quent problem medical treatment for an order,33 pretrial misconduct in the he denied by January exacerbated her diabetes. From year, 2008 until of the next that his acts constituted misconduct because physical opine and mental status. Both doctors Schraeder, 30. State ex rel. Oklahoma currently that the is unable to see note supra. law. See, 31. Defendant's exhibit a letter dated White, March 2010 authored Dr. Vicki See, Gloyd Lynn McCoy's Answer to Com- indicating from attention defi- suffers plaint filed on December major depressive cit disorder and disorder and by Stephen a letter written Defendant's exhibit M.D., Lindsey, detailing respondent's G. See, T 1 and note supra. *11 686 harm.34 fered from the to cause
they not intended respondent's procrastinati were on.39 hand, McCoy asserts that on the one While of law dur incapable of
he was
In
Bar
State ex rel. Oklahoma
oc
in which
misconduct
76, ¶ 22,
Briggs,
1999 OK
990 P.2d
Ass'n
that,
curred,
during
"period
his
he insists
attorney for
fail
we admonished the
provide
"vigor
a
was able to
problems," he
timely
ure to
in a
manner to the Bar
during a two-week
a client
ous defense" for
requests
Association's
for information.
so
initially
that
jury
asserted
trial
federal
warning:
doing, we issued this
imposed
might be
any suspension which
"... Let this serve as a reminder to attor
36 and the cause should be
stayed
should be
neys
timely respond to the
that failure to
a
McCoy to enter
diversion
for
remanded
request
information is in
Bar's
for
itself
filing
his answer
program.37 With
grounds
discipline.
[Emphasis
for
. . ."
in
brief,
conceded that a two
original.]
appro
be
year
day suspension would
and one
Furthermore,
anomaly
it
that
is not
this
priate.
present multiple
cause should
counts based
$383
arguments
respond. Separate
on the failure to
counts
A number of
unconvincing.
routinely
are
for such action have
been consid
relies
on which
Furthermore,
ered
this Court.41
an attor
respond to the Bar
lawyer's failure to
A
ney's
investigative inquiries is a serious
misconduct need not be intended to
Association's
attorney's
discipline
Finally,
harm
inaction
not
result.42
we
of fense.38 The
timely
entry
in a
are unconvinced
into a diversion
responding to the
program
would be sufficient to deter the
greater
to utilise
caused the Bar
manner
money
previ
and created a
from similar actions. He was
in time and
resources
addressing
ously given
opportunity
filing
com
after the
delay in
substantial
grievances.43
of three
one of the
already
had
suf-
plaints of his clients who
See,
McCoy's
Governing Disciplinary
Gloyd Lynn
to Com-
40. Rule
Answer
34.
0.$.2001,
providing
1-A
plaint
2009.
filed on December
pertinent part:
McCoy,
Gloyd Lynn
Respondent
35. Trial Brief of
lawyer
"... The failure of a
to answer within
5, 2010,
pertinent part
providing in
filed March
(20)
twenty
days
after service of
pp.
at
9-10:
(or
allegations),
recital of facts or
or such
may
granted by
time
be
further
as
General
During
McCoy's period
problems,
"...
Mr.
grounds
jury
a
Counsel,
shall be
he was able to conduct
two-week federal
discipline...."
in the United States District Court for the
trial
See,
41.
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sheri-
District of Oklahoma before the Hon-
Northern
710;
dan,
2003 OK
84 P.3d
State ex rel.
Egan. Although
jury
orable Claire
found
Schraeder,
Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
see note
up
vigorous
guilty,
McCoy put
the client
Mr.
supra; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Brew-
..."
defense for his client.
rel.
er,
605;
1999 OK
Gloyd
McCoy,
Respondent
Lynn
36.
Robb,
Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
1997 OK
Trial Brief
providing
pertinent part
P.2d 196.
filed March
p.at
11:
See,
42.
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giess
Any
stayed...."
suspension
be
"...
should
mann,
146, ¶ 9,
Respondent Gloyd Lynn McCoy,
Trial Brief
Deposition Gloyd McCoy, September
L.
5, 2010, providing
pertinent part
filed March
2009, providing
pertinent part
pp.
at
93-94:
p.
15:
Q
Remanding
Now,
t..
.
we talked
earlier
in the
this matter back to the OBA
deposition
your participation in the di-
about
requiring
purpose of
Mr.
for the
years ago.
program
version
about
five
I'm
appropri-
program
enter a diversion
would be
going
you
hand
this document here. This is
ate...."
shown as DIVERSION PROGRAM AGREE-
...
MENT
Schraeder,
State ex rel. Oklahoma
29, supra;
right.
you give
explana-
see note
State ex rel. Oklahoma
A All
Can
me brief
Robb, see note
infra.
surrounding your
Ass'n v.
tion
to the circumstances
as
entering
agreement?
into this
Hulett,
complaints,
had some
one the bar asso-
39. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
A I'd
about because it came
ciation was concerned
¶ 20,
687
law,
safeguarding
with a view to
agreement
was that
conditions of the
.
courts,
public,
interest of the
of the
and
receiving
counseling
continue
legal
weekly
period
profession. Discipline
imposed
for a
of at
is
to
psychiatrist
months,
goals
participation
punish
maintain these
rather than as a
five-and-one half
least
lawyer's
deter his ac ment for the
misconduct.45 Disci
nothing
program
did
to
plinary
that one of the
action is also administered to deter
here.
It is instructive
tions
originated
attorney
a cause
from similar future conduct and
from
during
restraining
time
to act as a
vehicle on others who
undertaken
same
might
committing
consider
similar acts.46
prog
participating
in the
which
was
Discipline is fashioned to coincide with the
ram.44
imposed
lawyers
upon
restrictions
other
for
T
MISCONDUCT
35 RESPONDENTS
professional
acts of
misconduct.47
A
FOR
WARRANTS SUSPENSION
this Court strives to be even-handed and fair
AND
YEARS
ONE
PERIOD OF TWO
matters,
disciplinary
discipline
must be
DAY AND THE PAYMENT OF
case-by-case
decided on a
basis because each
THE PROCEEDING.
COSTS OF
unique transgressions
situation involves
and
mitigating factors.48
Discipline
186
is administered to
T
impairment
37 Similar causes where
was
public
confidence
the bar. Our
preserve
disciplinerang
not an issue have resulted in
inquire
punish
not to
but to
responsibility is
ing
public
from
censure to disbarment.49 In
gauge
lawyer's
continued fitness to
into and
inmate,
because the inmate-I
from a-an
644;
914 P.2d
State ex rel.
Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
¶
thought
to
the inmate had said not
Bolton,
violated the rule Association, panel, the trial the Bar and the dishonesty, involving engaging conduct respondent. Suspension years for two fraud, deceit, misrepresentations and rules day discipline imposed one is consistent with disciplinary proceedings. governing lawyers upon committing other similar con Beasley, into account the fact that we took duct. can utilize this time supported finding the evidence physical address his mental and disabilities attorney's professional misconduct stemmed capable and ensure that he is of the ethical problems and his ad- spiraling personal *14 practice seeking of law before reinstatement to aleohol. diction 11, Governing Disciplinary under Rule Rules {41 that panel The trial determined 0.8.2001, Proceedings, App. Ch. 1-A. McCoy incapable practicing of law as addition, disciplinehaving imposed, been the GoverningDis- defined under Rule Rules respondent charged payment with the stands 0.8.2001, 1,App. ciplinary Proceedings, 5 Ch. $4,988.55.52 proceeding of costs in the of suspension of two 1-A. It recommended McCoy's 1 43 cannot request We accede to day. years and one Association suspension that the be retroactive to the date joins disciplinary in the recommendation. As suspension the order of interim entered. We previously, the Tenth Cireuit dis- discussed impressed by McCoy's repayment are inof respondent the for conduct remark- barred $15,000.00 here, excess of in unearned fees. Nev ably presented counts i.e. similar the timely in a criminal ertheless, failure to file an appear it does not that all clients worrisome, that proceeding or to order of have been made whole. More is may the fact that the have mis discipline. regarding imposition court the of represented the status of his case before the agreed we entered an order On June suspension upon the disbar- of interim based regarding Tenth Circuit his federal disbarme however, Ultimately, upon nt.53 in Tenth our decision ment Cireuit attorney's personally contentions that he was apply suspension retroactively not incapable practicing law under of Rule MeCoy's comply rests on failure to all Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 Rules provisions suspension of the interim order noteworthy 0.9.2001, 1, App. 1-A. It Ch. is filed on June 2010.54 agreeing suspension, even in that attorney appeared that he to contend CONCLUSION compe- provide able to some level of McCoy representation convincing
tent
clients as
144 Clear and
evidence exists
to his
sought
suspension
demonstrating
multiple
that
order contain
that
violated
filings
No further
exist
Order
Disbarment.
see note
rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n
Pacenza,
maiter,
supra.
proceedings
in that
and no further
[Emphasis
original.]
have been set. . .."
6, 16,
Governing Disciplinary pro-
52. Rule
Rules
Brief,
See, Complainant's Reply
July
filed on
supra.
see note
29, 2010, providing
pertinent part
p.
on
3:
See,
Brief,
Reply
July
Complainant's
filed on
"...
has violated this Court's Order of
29, 2010,
p.
providing
pertinent part
3:
Suspension by failing
comply
Interim
9, 1,
Governing Disciplinary
Rule
Rules
'A
brief,
In his
states
that
Respondent
('RGDP'),
0.$.2001
ceedings
App.
hearing
on the Tenth Circuit matter is sched-
1-A.
January,
Respondent's
uled
2011.' See
An-
See Order
Interim
rules We conclude
Associationis bound.55 misconduct war
respondent's license to suspension of his
rants years day imposi and the
law two and one precondition As a reinstate
tion of costs.
ment, comply with Rule MeCoy shall: Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5
©.9.2001, 1-A; demonstrate that physi from mental and longer
he no suffers rendering incapable him of the
cal conditions law;
practice refund the unearned fees disciplinary through in the counts
described
payment either to clients or to the Client if
Security Fund restitution has been made behalf; pay pro costs of these
on his $4,938.55.
ceedings the amount of *15 AND
RESPONDENTSUSPENDED OR-
DERED PAY TO COSTSOF THE
IN
PROCEEDINGTHEAMOUNTOF
$4,938.55. TAYLOR,
EDMONDSON,C.J., V.C.J.,
HARGRAVE, WATT, KAUGER,
WINCHESTER, COLBERT, REIF, JJ.,
concur.
OPALA, J., dissenting part.
I respondent. would disbar the
STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION, Complainant
BAR
Jeffrey MARTIN, Respondent. Allen No.
SCBD No. 1784.
OBAD
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Sept.21,2010. rett, 6, supra; note State ex rel. see Pacenza, 6,
55. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. supra; rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Gar- Anderson, Ass'n v. seen note supra.