State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Anderson
109 P.3d 326
Okla.
2005
Check Treatment

*1 non-hospital-related by commercial real determination District estate the Court on re- multi-year mand, leases. projected necessary, light of our final hold- ing. judgment We reverse the of the Dis- ¶38 Authority Hospital is The correct trict Court and that the hold Amended and Trust Indenture asserting that the does not Restated of Hospital Trust Indenture the specify forty-six the exact investment the Authority requires preserve the Trustees to its income. million dollars and the Compounded Principal the in a form that will clearly Trust states that all Indenture of the expenditure available for the event of Principal, forty-six all Compounded million early lease, hospital the termination of therefrom, preserved dollars and income upon people available of the allowing a vote until of either termination the lease or a vote expenditure, such that a vote of the Authority’s of the Trust people. posi- The people necessary Authority for the in- upon premise tion is that investing based the thirty vest million dollars this economic thirty Compounded million dollars from the development project as the owner the Principal shopping qualifies mall retail property. The is remanded matter to the thirty preserving million dollars to be District proceedings Court for further consis- early available in of an the event termination tent opinion. with this Authority lease. However is also stating thirty million dollars is not necessary early in the event termination of ¶ WATT, LAVENDER, C.J.,

the lease. Trust states that KAUGER, HARGRAVE, WINCHESTER, formed “to ... create establish trust to TAYLOR, COLBERT, JJ. —Concur. finance, operate, construct administer facilities,

hospital ...” O.R. at Article

1(1). The Trust indicates that Indenture

Compounded Principal is source of funds to

provide hospital facilities event of ear- lease,

ly people, termination of the unless the

by votes, assign purpose. their a different OK 9 provides 39 The Trust Indenture that the Compounded may spent Principal when a Oklahoma, STATE ex rel. OKLA vote of people expenditure. such directs ASSOCIATION, HOMA BAR agree We with Landowners that the Trust Complainant, requires people Indenture a vote of the Authority thirty to invest million dollars from Compounded Principal in a com- Phillip ANDERSON, Respondent. John mercial project purpose real estate for the Authority becoming the owner of the real SCBD estate in project. Supreme Court Oklahoma. Summary

IV. 22, 2005. Feb. ¶ 40 We hold that the first issue raised on appeal City longer moot because is no As Corrected 24 and Feb. Feb. seeking municipal power to invoke a of emi- Injunctive nent domain. relief

City moot, issue is based and we

thus affirm Court’s denial District of an

injunction on this issue. We reverse the

judgment of the District and hold that applies § Hospital O.S.2001 to the 178.4

Authority may be exempted unless it

application authority, this statute other

and leave that question for a first-instance *2 Counsel, Speegle,

Mike Assistant General Association, City, Bar Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma, Complainant. Nixa, Anderson, Se,

Phillip Pro John Mis- souri,

OPINION WATT, Chief Justice: Complainant, Bar Asso- 1 The Oklahoma (the Bar), complaint against filed a ciation Anderson, Phillip a li- Respondent, John Oklahoma, pursuant censed Disciplinary Governing Rules Pro- Rule (RGDP), O.S.2001, 1, App. ceedings Ch. 1- A., Rules of for violations the Oklahoma (ORPC), O.S.2001, Professional Conduct 1, App. 3-A. Ch. alleged Respondent Bar committed acts of misconduct in

specific complaint. counts each three count, alleged the Bar violated RGDP,1 8.4, 1.3, ORPC.2 In Rule and Rule bring Discipline Contrary ably to Pre- be found discredit for Acts Conduct, disciplinary provides: grounds profession, shall scribed Standards of action, felony whether the act is a or or not any by any lawyer of act con- The commission misdemeanor, conduct, or at all. a crime Conviction trary prescribed standards of prece- proceeding is not a condition professional ca- criminal in the course of his whether otherwise, pacity, would reason- dent to which act complain- convincing the Bar there “clear and complaint, violations witness, Stroud, every Ann accused Re- rule Lee ethics mentioned Oklahoma ing 311”, her in adopted assault her Ethics spondent October (Count I); the crime of committing which attached to its brief.4 The Bar home (Count II); very her home also contends vulnerable *3 committing during Respondent represented the of oral sod- time her of crime forcible the (Count III). against Respondent omy engaging in her and that the her home as Dr. Vantine.

same conduct TRIAL PANEL REPORT FACTS report 3 The Trial Panel in its *4 options. she had no She her,

miliated and felt treating than for with Stroud while Re- time, medical at the also cited her condition repre- have sex while spondent to with her trying to from sur- stating she was recover He the difference senting her. indicated gery She and was medication. length professional time of the delay reporting the sexual i.e., blamed her relationship, her for Vantine treated five at the time. assaults on her state mind fact did not years, and the that Stroud de- However, he pend on acknowl- criminal 9 stated she thinks the wrong he and were edged both Dr. Vantine charges were re- against they professionals were because both and attorney dropped duced because his and/or during her their had sex with records, police her medical and obtained sense, it relationships. that he admits thought and embar- she would humiliated similar. they public. made She also rassed if medical were ob- testified that the records testimony, During Respondent’s he permission or authoriza- tained without her questions Ms. Bates him, fired he tion. When she Respondent’s PRT to determine the level of insure the Laure- told her he would she lost involved his actions with Stroud. remorse also told his wife ate case. He her that him: Bates asked Ms. him, destroy and that it would would leave But, Anderson, I like Q. Mr. would family and his work. your is. determine what level remorse currently lives 10 Anderson testified he you’ve wrong. admitted that done You’ve parents’ not at his house. He is Missouri you admitted that should dis- You’ve Missouri, but intends become licensed you’ve ciplined, and admitted licensed, pending the resolution of this case. you’ve lost so you’ve conceded that experi- He learned from firsthand stated he much, you keep saying allega- but it is a bad idea become involved ence that me she’s done cost tions cost and what previous He testified as to two clients. you you’ve that after you, but also said relationship. he had had a clients with whom case, you continued to the Tulsa secured dating his wife she was began while Truly, occasion. sex with her on have client, then she was hired as a and “my I actions what would like to hear many clients He stated female assistant. everything,” me to rea- caused lose —the him a sexual approached you take Do re- son for relationship. you way do sponsibility —or thought he there was He testified still— specific having personal rule ethics room, A. In this no. clients, although not relationship with he did allegations Q. you still believe it’s her Do it he know which rule was. He stated you everything? cost engage personal learned he should rape charges allegations got toll Her false relationships with clients because of the A. me, on the front got me him as the and as a filed takes on got me in paper page of person. newspaper, marriage and that’s outside of this of his practice and the loss of his on my Inside of this room is law rape room. the fact Stroud accused him of law, my practice of negative publicity. license and and her led his arrest and allegations of this room hurt a false lot cases, disciplinary 15 In bar me, people very other than and I’m original jurisdiction Court exercises exclusive angry my that. As far ás law licensing agent. aas State ex rel. OBA v. concerned, as far as me license is 33, Gasaway, 826, 810 P.2d her, I’m sex with which as far as con- (Okla.1991). responsibility The ultimate really what this cerned isn’t needs to be deciding whether misconduct has occurred about. I I didn’t didn’t as- and what rests with I sault her. had consensual sex with this Court. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar As contract, somebody who read the ¶¶ Giessmann, 146, 11, sociation v. 1997 OK my wrong, 1227, duty Our to review the disciplined I that’s what should be for. facts to determine an ethical oc violation non-delegable. curred is State ex rel. Okla Q. I along path And think we’ve been homa Bar v. Taylor, Association 2000 OK while, go try for a so let me back and ¶¶ 35, 4, 4 P.3d 1247. Our review of rephrase Initially it. trying I was novo, the record is de State ex rel. OBA your determine what level of remorse Patmon, *5 State ex was.' That’s what started this line of 75; ¶¶ 26, Wolfe, rel. OBA v. questioning, question actually and this 427, 432, in which we conduct a non- you these rules that violated were de- deferential, full-scale examination of all rele signed protect to clients such as Ms. facts; vant the recommendations of the trial you Stroud. The fact that violated them panel binding are persuasive. neither nor means that she is a victim. you Do State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. agree with that? Taylor, supra. A. Yes. . ¶ 16 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Associ- Q-. that, having And said I do understand Groshon, supra, ation v. an at- you yourself well, that see as a victim as with, tempted hug, to flirt kiss and touch in a you undoubtedly have lost a lot. manner, sexual his divorce client. His ac- Ókay, I think that’s all. you. Thank tions were unwelcome toward a in client acts position. a vulnerable This Court ordered DISCUSSION Respondent disciplined by to be ¶ 14 with determining In accordance Re- censure, pro- addition to the costs of the remorse, spondent’s level of the PRT also ceeding. That was imposed be- Respondent questions consider to. Respondent cause the showed remorse and responsibility whether he took for his actions. appeared because the incident to be an isolat- Initially, Respondent’s version of his first ed event. sexual encounter with Stroud was diametri- Comparing Groshon to the instant cally opposed testimony. to her He stated case, however, we have no similar evidence of over; she asked him that she told him she mitigation. Respondent The remorse ac- wanted have sex with him because she had knowledged expressed only was in terms of not been with a year; man for over a what Stroud’s accusations cost him. He also that wearing she a Victoria’s Secret out- was testified that his motive in sex with fit when he arrived. He stated she had get case, Stroud was to the Vantine claiming consensual sex with him that she was not pretty it was they clear she would hire him if marriage Also, sad that her had ended. he event, had sex. This was not an isolated as alleged she told him she had sex with a there was evidence that other female divorce friend of her son’s and that she smoked clients made accusations him. similar marijuana with her son. He stated he did not know OxyContin until -Respondent his testified he believed at preliminary hearing. He blamed failure the time that a rule did exist in the ORPC garding particularly appli- Rule 2.1 which is lawyer engaging prohibited a client, although he cable to this case. It stated: relationship with acknowledged not which rule. did know (sic) lawyers If a to a advice client is wrong because it is such based, part, upon an effort initiate or interest sex best have the client’s promote with a sexual relations Having so lawyer representing the Rules. Sexual violates rela- however, this, *6 ¶22 Respondent suspended is from the practice year of law for one from the date CONCLUSION opinion is is filed. further 20 We find the violated costs assessed sum of of this $1913.72 8.4, prejudicial ad as conduct to the (90) ninety days proceeding paid to within be justice. Sopher, v. mission of See OBA opinion after this is filed. 1.3, P.2d 707.5 Under Rule RGDP, required that be it is not YEAR AND 23 SUSPENSION OF ONE discipline im a crime before convicted of OF PROCEEDING. COSTS THIS posed. pursuing The Acts with “con Stroud is WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, trary prescribed standards of conduct” KAUGER, EDMONDSON, HARGRAVE, reasonably bring be which “would found to COLBERT, JJ., concur. profession.” See discredit addition, although In RGDP. OPALA, J., part. dissents allege complaint in its specifically Bar did not 2.1, requiring indepen a violation of ORPC TAYLOR, J., dissents. professional judgment representing a dent client, years of two impose “I would Legal gave Ethics Committee day.” following in Ethics 311 re- advice discipline pension appropriate Sopher, considered was deemed this Court discipline attorney. Hampshire for sexual misconduct attor- case from New for The offense there was touching unwelcome offensive ney engaged with in sexual relations a client her mother. of a client and This Court psychiatrist who emo- under the care of a jurisdictions examined because of a lack of other Case, tionally fragile. See Drucker's 133 N.H. authority This cited case in Oklahoma. (1990). Sopher A.2d was disci- punishment the level of numerous cases and reprimand. plined with a particular two-year We noted sus- offense. OPALA, J., dissenting part. 2005 OK 11 HILL, Jr., Appellant, Howard Lee is neither about nor 1 This case dispassion- all It is remorse. appropriate discipline ate assessment BLEVINS, Heather Diane upon a who admits to imposed D.S., Infant, Appellees. affair with a had a short-lived 100,504. questiona- female with then-vulnerable adult consenting to sexual intima- capacity ble Supreme Court of Oklahoma. cy- March join enthusiastically 2 I welcome the protection lawyers’ Bar’s increased of the predators profes-

clientele from Administering discipline in a

sion. excessive way accomplish

few cases is not the goal.

Bar’s desired Consistent and even-

handed enforcement

preferred splash over an occasional of over-

powering fervor.1 Law not a moral disci-

pline degree that measures the civil one’s

culpability by ecclesiastical standards

gauging gravity of man’s sin.2 Viewed terms,

realistic law is an instrument of so-

cial control its own norms of fairness propriety.3 today’s pronouncement I 3 concur

subjects respondent disci-

pline but dissent

lengthy suspension. Respondent’s license suspended period.

should be for a shorter *7 Kelsen, justice?: Sopher, 1. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 3. Hans Justice, Law, what And 55, 707, J., (Opala, 1993 OK 1, 1, dis- (1957); Of Science Politics In The Mirror senting). Kelsen, Theory Hans General of Law and State (Harvard Press, 1945); University 8-9 Lon L. Wilson, 495, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. 343 U.S. Fuller, (2d ed.1969). Morality Of Law 9 506, 777, 783, (1952); 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. 1098 Watkins, 1680, Torcaso v. 367 U.S. 81 S.Ct. (1961); 6 L.Ed.2d Guinn Church Christ Collinsville, notes Respondent charges against testified about con- the filed Stroud her medical subsequently dismissed. The Trial dition at the time Anderson at her were arrived house, report purportedly included in facts that sign Panel its the to have her some papers admitted a sexual rela- her divorce. for She testified she was Stroud, medication, tionship OxyContin, with he had had strong pain and that sex on follow- time, purpose being surgery her for ing with of hired to facial at the the and that malpractice a case for judgment. handle medical her.3 medication clouded her stat- She took Ritalin ed she also for Attention Deficit ¶ 4 The Trial live Panel heard the testimo Disorder, did not but mix the medications ny of Stroud and found that out. going she was She testified he advantage violated the ORPC of suggested, crudely, her his back to rub power over a position his trust and client to have she needed sex with him. She in those circumstances. Panel The also pushed stated he her down on the couch and prior complaints heard evidence of of a sexu they struggled while he held down. her brought by Respon al nature against others dent, pursued. but which were not 7 Stroud testified she told him cited Panel State rel. OBA Robert F. Tulsa she had against psychi- ex lawsuit filed a Groshon, Laureate, hospital, atric psychiatrist and a proceed there, Vantine, public censure and costs Dr. who treated her for ings imposed, finding were eating alleged it similar to the disorder. She Dr. Vantine instant case. the Panel is of the relationship had initiated sexual her with Respondent’s opinion therapy, during misconduct her at a time when she was case extremely instant exceeded that of Groshon. It vulnerable. alleged She the rela- suspension years recommends a tionship of two resulted in had destruction day and the marriage. costs of At her the time she hired proceeding. filing post-divorce contempt husband, against proceedings her she former Chief, In Complainant’s Brief-in looking lawyer another handle requests period Bar “that an Tulsa lawsuit. imposed on the protection puri- for the and the testified Stroud there were three to fication of the Bar.” The Bar contends that four sexual encounters with 8.4, Misconduct, provides lawyer at engages subsection Will a who in sexual relations (d): violate with client the Rules of Professional lawyer pre- It misconduct for to: Conduct "Rules” if the has no existing relationship consensual sexual with (d) engage prejudicial in conduct that is the client? justice.... the administration of recognizing provide While the Rules no ex- press prohibition relationships sexual malpractice brought by 3. The medical case was previous with a client with whom no consensual Vantine, Jerry psychologist Dr. existed, the OBAEthics Com- Tulsa, Psychiatric Hospital at Laureate with opined "significant probability" mittee there is a relationship during she whom had a sexual her that such conduct will result in a of one violation treatment. or more of the rules. The cited Committee 1.7, 1.8, 8.4(d). inquiry: 4. The Ethics answered the 2.1 and ¶ Although Respondent no choice admitted she felt she had explained that She Stroud, legal her he denied the facts as she parents paying were sex her because fees, support regarding sexual encounter. needed child testified the first and she sex, hire him for alimony. did not another He Stroud went after She testified pressure because He following the assaults but that he did admit- nothing she could do she felt there he had sex with her order become ted it, parents paying her again stating represent hired to her in the Vantine case. Moreover, already had thought fees. that he previously He testified Dr. previous lawyers. of the nature advantage two Because drugged her and took Vantine lawsuit, would be she said it her, of the Tulsa opinion changed that he after but Respondent at- “totally unbelievable” that opponent. explained why talking to her hu- tacked her. She embarrassed it was different Dr. Vantine have sex

Notes

this notes acknowledged may tions with a client undermine the ob- sexu- blames Stroud jective detachment which is a normal inci- However, is not relationship. al independent dent of advice. duty the conduct of Re- Court’s to oversee particularly This is true in situations spondent’s clients. lawyer, attempting where the to initiate note acknowl- We also relations, promote or to takes action wrong. edges his behavior which is not renders advice overwhelmingly supports the evidence (sic) clients best interests. finding PRT’s sex in used attorney-client representation advance accepts findings This Court particularly his own cause with vulnerable Trial Report Panel that he feels client. He testified remorse “by taking advantage violated the responsi- and takes with a client sex position position power of trust and the contrast, however, bility for his actions. a client over under the circumstances.” We he also that Stroud’s accusations testified agree further Trial Panel with the that Re everything, caused him to lose which caused spondent’s conduct exceeded shown testimony him We find his remorse. Groshon, public reprimand im where pro- life how Stroud ruined his belies his impose posed as We á himself the vic- fessed remorse. He sees year, proceeding. plus costs of tim.