*1 pending matters and communi- promptly mandatory a obli-
cating with a client —is STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. imposed upon practitioners. licensed gation BAR OKLAHOMA ASSOCI- onerous, obligation very is the Albeit this ATION, Complainant, expected lawyer. from a It minimum to be v. Anything less is epitomizes professionalism. BOLTON, Respondent. Darrell L. lawyer’s duty to serve the a breach of a client.28 As reflected record, by Evans’ OBAD No. 1127. departure represents conduct a marked from SCBD No. 3960. these standards. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. lawyer’s A license is a certificate of public
professional fitness to deal with the as legal practitioner. in the
a Public confidence
practitioner proper is to the func essential A
tioning profession. lawyer’s mis adversely
conduct reflects on the entire Bar
because exhibits a lack of commitment causes, courts,
the clients’ and to other
members of the Bar. Evans’ actions call for imposition review,
On de novo we find the three complaint amply sup-
counts of the Bar’s
ported convincing clear and record proof.29 panel’s The PRT recommendation suspended
that Evans be from two-year-and-one-day for a
law interval accordingly thirty approved. days Within opinion pay
the date this Evans shall proceeding costs incurred in this in the $3,652.77.
amount of
Respondent suspended stands two day
years day opinion and one from the precondition
becomes final. As for his eligibility, promptly
reinstatement he must
pay the costs incident to this
prosecution.
All Justices concur. "(c) finding against respon- at To warrant a note 12 case, charge charges dent or in contested 29. terms of Rule Rules Gov- convincing clear and must be established erning Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991 Ch. evidence,_" [Emphasis added.] 1-A, App. state: *3 Counsel, Douglas, E.
John Asst. Gen. Okla- Ass’n, City, com- homa for plainant. Bolton,
Darrell L. Pro se.
OPALA, Justice. proceeding against a
In this lawyer, the issues to be decided are: Is meaningful the record1 sufficient for a de complaint’s disposi- novo consideration ninety-day-suspension tion? and Is a disciplin- imposition appropriate of costs an ary imposed respondent’s for sanction to be professional discipline? an- breach We questions in affirmative. swer both [Bar] The Oklahoma Bar Association charged [respondent or Darrell L. Bolton with four mis- Bolton] counts2 of hearing, panel made conduct. After a a’PRT respondent transcript previous 1. The record consists of a of the PRT’s two matters for which the hearing Stipulated Findings and of January Fact disciplined. has been 1983 Bol- Agreed Conclusions Law and Recommendation providing privately reprimanded sub- ton was Discipline, respondent and submitted representation competent for the Bar nor [neither standard [but PRT]. not followed 2,May respondent pub- was zealous]. On allowing licly use his censured for client to count, complaint captioned a fifth The contains public. to defraud members of the trust account Discipline”, "Enhancement of which rests on findings togeth- petition of fact and conclusions of law in October 1991 but took no further er with a recommendation of Long’s knowledge] May action [to until 1.3,1.4, 3.2, PRT ruled Bolton violated Rules when she received from him a set of inter- and 8.1 of the Oklahoma Rules of Profession- rogatories. While the had re- al Conduct3 Rule 5.2 of the Rules Gov- interrogatories thirty days ceived the almost erning Disciplinary Proceedings.4 earlier, With the gave Long only night he pre- one concurrence, the Bar recom- pare responses. her suspended prac- mended he be from the In Long informed ninety days. reject- tice of law for The PRT pre-trial that he would move for a conference recommendation, counseling ed this that the they go day and that would to court the after appropriate one-year sanction should abe planned she returned from a vacation. In *4 suspension payment and the of the costs of July Long’s inquire mother called to proceeding. gone when she had to court as she had read newspaper in the that the divorce had been FACTS ADMITTED BY STIPULATION5 granted. COUNT I Sherry Long [Long] In 1991 Being decree, retained Long unaware of the divorce respondent the to respondent secure a divorce.6 He filed called the and message left a that 4. The 3. The ing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991 Ch. App. the plined 8.1, O.S.1991 Ch. him and for In the latter cause the upon written Matters. ary authority....” A the client.” demand for as the ary (b) [A] resentation.” dite to tent promptly comply informed about the status information. “Rule A “Rule 3.2. (a) (b) "Rule 1.4. Communication. "Rule lawyer “After legal profession. Oklahoma Rules of Professional make informed decisions lawyer 1-A, file and serve a A A lawyer General Counsel shall ... ... matter, pertinent reasonably promptness litigation for lawyer General Counsel lawyer 8.1. Bar Admission and 1.3. response knowingly making state: neglecting [*] Jk shall make reasonable efforts to lawyer, shall act with reasonable failing ... information from ... shall not: Expediting Litigation. Diligence. shall terms of Rule terms of Rules shall consistent with the interests of App. [*] [*] in connection with a necessary such which who shall thereafter make a with reasonable to fail to explain a representing copy keep 3-A, preliminary investigation maintain the [*] legal n may contains a full and fair respondent respond state: a client to a matter to the ex- matter [*] [*] deem regarding aof matter and permit [a] 1.3, 1.4, Rules Govern- grievance a client.” appropriate, [*] 4¡ Disciplinary entrusted to requests to a lawful integrity Conduct, reasonably was disci- the client disciplin- disciplin- diligence the 3.2 and .¡. [*] expe- rep- ... for of 5. The grievance stances no sanction can attach to that the Office of the General Counsel ing failure to assistance Grievance Committee. Under Discipline contains several references to the Tul- nent sions tee and its interaction with the ters, sa Long For an fecting lawyers. Here, upon limited committee) Association shall have the eral The General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Rules: (i) To use the and duties in the area of Oklahoma Bar Rule further within Counsel, icated “Rule 3.2 Duties. ance unless the pertaining grounds.... disclosure of all the facts and circumstances County part: supervision Stipulated Findings O.S.1991 Ch. 3.2(i), (or the General Counsel paid there is services of a twenty days Law and example time as to, any committee, cooperate recital Bar Association's Grievance Commit- shall be upon respondent to the services nothing carrying Tulsa Association of facts may state or of the of all Agreed lawyer's alleged grounds failure of with that committee. expressed see State v. be county County App. in the record General Counsel utiliz- after a retainer of out the duties failure to do so is or granted by county discipline other members of the Recommendation allegations), concerning for 1-A, (including, service a Fact and Conclu- following powers Bar Association's bar lawyer Hood, Okl., discipline." respondent. these circum- states in constitutional association’s respondent's under these the General misconduct of matters af- sought indicating grievance to answer the $500.00. imposed the but not or such perti- griev- pred- Mat- gen- the for represent to her in this notice of the hired other counsel published had seen she indicating action. became dissatisfied with his ser- her call She Bolton returned divorce. discharged him after he had failed of the events her vices he was not aware opposing on counsel her answers to inquire them and re- to serve about ease but would interrogatories. Irby then had her first Long that to her. Bolton later told port back hearing, respondent previously furnish her pre-trial counsel had conducted the court vacation, prepared responses and asked Bolton to of town on at Long was out while ap- opposing on counsel —which he Long nor serve them neither which failed to do.9 21,1992 February opposing granted a divorce peared. The court compelling July counsel filed a motion for order Long’s husband on discovery requested responses. to secure the Next, vacating Long discussed the decree Irby’s Long Respondent never served answers respondent. with the decid- of divorce interrogatories. During pendency she not to contest the default decree since ed its terms were fair.7 proceeding respondent never During their last of the divorce felt temporary or- to se- secured a modification of the Long asked consultation custody provide child judicial approval granting der previously-requested cure reasonably keep his give support. about He did not change name and to her advice mat- court client informed about the status her payment of certain bills which the *5 disposi- diligently pursue failed to a allocated between her and her husband. ter and had Long’s Respondent wholly failed to secure tion of the divorce. change gave her the re-
name and never AND payment of the bills. II IV quested advice for the COUNTS Long Irby griev filed Both and III COUNT County the Tulsa Bar Associat ances with February griev ion.10 Patsy Irby [Irby] to On 1993 these Ann retained Bolton to the Bar’s represent paid and him a ances were forwarded General her a divorce $1,000.00.8 Irby Counsel.11 On March 1993 the Office of previously of had retainer provisions comported [by respondent] 7. The divorce decree’s A. proposed Sure. which with the terms of a settlement licensing your Q. Which is true father. opposing Respondent had communicated to Right. a member of the Tulsa A. I’m not counsel. County Bar Association. Court, Supreme Q. You are an act of the Respondent Irby’s $350.00 returned retainer 8. County you’re Bar a member of the Tulsa being discharged. upon that he did He testified Association, you practice. if that’s where spirit a and before notifica- this in conciliation Tulsa, practice in I’m not a member. A. I complaint against any him. tion of Bar filed you may Q. are as You not choose to be but far as I'm concerned. Respondent he had discussed with testified that [Transcript pg. 9] . Stubblefield, husband, Irby’s counsel for Mr. mandating involun- is no rule of this court There Irby’s interrogatories. form of answers tary membership county in a bar association. that modifications He informed Mr. Stubblefield in his conclusion that The Master was mistaken necessary be would be before the answers could County respondent Bar held a Association Tulsa Respondent was unable to make the served. any disciplin- membership to and was amenable necessary before he was dis- modifications ary process See note of that association. charged. absence the record where we discussed the from any request by Coun- the Office of the General respondent During hearing testified PRT 3.2(i) assistance from the sel under Rule for County he was not a member of the Tulsa that County Grievance Com- Tulsa Bar Association's Kennedy, Presiding Association. Joe Master Bar mittee. engaged panel, and Bolton of the PRT following colloquy: lawyer’s alleged information about a 11.When Bar, [by Kennedy] any Master officer of the misconduct reaches really emphasize guess obligation “Q. to I to I didn't mean to refer that information his or her your complete as was in Counsel. It is not as much on the docket the Office of the General complain respond your necessary injured direct- total failure to to own Tulsa that the client and Association, especially See State ex rel. County ly General Counsel. and more to the Bar’s note important Oklahoma Bar Associ- Bar Ass'n v. and to me the Okl. 262, infra ation. Bolton, the General Counsel mailed to at his not show sufficient accept respon- remorse or address, sibility current roster notice that the Gen- for his actions. It was also the PRT’s initiating grievance eral Counsel was finding respondent implemented based had not upon complaints Long Irby. of both procedures and office prevent which would This notice advised him that he should re- recurrence of conduct similar to that of which spond twenty days.12 within Bolton did currently complaining. the Bar was respond. April not On 1993 the Office of
the General respon- Counsel informed the AGREED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW dent certified mail that he should file parties’ stipulation The response written within concedes that days five re- ceiving mandatory conduct violates the again certified letter. Bolton did provisions 1.3,1.4, 8.1, respond. Rules 3.2 and Okla- Conduct, homa Rules Professional When did not response file a Rule Pro- letter, Responsi- the second the Professional ceedings, grounds profes- constitutes for bility subpoena Commission issued a duces sional commanding appear tecum him deposi- 3,May tion at 10:00 a.m. on Respon- a.m., 3,May dent called at 8:50 1993 and I deposition
asked that the be rescheduled for deposition 1993. Bolton’s was taken THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT IS on the later date. COMPLETE FOR A DE NOVO CON- SIDERATION ALL OF REL- FACTS
COUNT V
EVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING
January
pri-
was
Supreme
Court has
vately reprimanded by the Professional Re-
*6
jurisdiction
original
exclusive
over Bar disci
sponsibility
providing
Commission for
plinary proceedings.13 The court’s review is
representation
client
which was neither com-
conducted
de novo consideration of the
petent
sufficiently
nor
zealous.
prosecution brought before us.14 Neither the
2,May
publicly
1989 this court
cen-
stipulations
parties
pan
the
nor
PRT
the
sured the
professional
con-
findings
el’s
regarding
or assessments
the
duct which
integrity
pro-
offended the
weight
credibility
or
of the evidence can bind
fession
neglecting
and for
a legal matter
consideration,
this court.15 In a de novo
in
entrusted to him.
which the court
constitutionally
exercises its
invested, nondelegable power
regulate
ADDITIONAL FACTS
practice
both the
legal
of law and
practit
the
In addition to
by stipu-
ioners,16
the facts admitted
exploration
a full-scale
of all rele
lation the PRT found
that the
did vant
mandatory.17
facts is
12. Bolton
family
testified that he and
process
his
were
supervised by
cative
must be
our de novo
residing
at his current roster address when
nondelegable
consideration'. This attribute of
the first
living
notice was mailed but rather were
jurisdiction
distinguish
serves to
in
parents.
the residence of his
functions from trial de novo(cid:127)—a retrial
ain differ-
appellate
ent court—or even from de novo
review
Raskin, Okl.,
13. State ex rel. Okl. Bar Ass’n v.
642
on the
indepen-
record. The latter stands for an
262,
(1982);
Ass’n,
Tweedy
P.2d
265
v. Okl. Bar
dent, non-deferential examination of another tri-
Okl.,
1049,
(1981);
624 P.2d
1052
In re Inte
bunal’s record.
Oklahoma,
gration
505,
State Bar
185 Okl.
113,
(1939).
95 P.2d
114
Raskin,
supra
note
The court’s review, counts, against on the back- panel PRT submits a now charged unless the past pattern ground novo of his established proceedings for a de complete record parties’ stipulations neglect. Our Neither the nor of all issues.18 examination findings to ensure that the PRT’s and recommendations are responsibility is hence thorough inquiry binding upon for a record is sufficient us.23 crafting ap and for into essential facts discipline19 that would avoid the
propriate Ill visiting disparate treatment on vice of respondent-lawyer.20 SUSPENSION, A NINETY-DAY RECOM- adequate for our de The record is COUNSEL, MENDED BY GENERAL alleged profes novo consideration of Bolton’s AN IS APPROPRIATE SANCTION misconduct. sional PRO- FOR RESPONDENT’S PAST
FESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
II
responsibility in exercis
The court’s
disciplinary jurisdiction
pun
is not to
ing its
DISCIPLINE
lawyer’s continued
inquire
ish but to
into the
alleged
complaints
viola
The
fitness,
safeguarding
the inter
with a view
us are cumulative. Bar matters
tions before
public,
of the courts and of the
est of
multiple episodes of miscon
often deal with
legal profession.24 Justice Irwin stated this
maintaining
public’s
interest
duct.
principle
for the court:
when he said
competent legal representation is best served
perfor
Bearing in mind that licensure to
practitioner’s
of a
examination
inquiry
law is not for the benefit of the individual
span
over a
of time and an
mance
profession,
rather for
history.21 If that his
member of the
but
one’s
into
misconduct,
public,
primary
con-
pattern of
the benefit of the
tory should reveal a
lawyer
determining
whether a
tailoring
appropriate
sideration
will be a factor
examining
disciplined,
to be
concerns the welfare
discipline.22
Bolton’s of
When
searching
public...
.25
fending performance and
for the
explanation,
Lloyd,
Governing
an
see
note
Disci-
came. For
18. Rule
*7
O.S.1991,
1,
14,
App.
plinary Proceedings,
[Lloyd
1-
II].
5
Ch.
P.2d at
787
856
6.13, provides
part
in
that:
A. Rule
Okl.,
Perceful,
v.
20. State ex rel. Okl. Bar Ass’n
"...
Trial Panel shall file with the Clerk
[T]he
627,
(1990).
P.2d
630
796
report
Supreme
the
Court a written
which
of
findings
the Trial Panel’s
shall contain
of fact
Lowe, Okl.,
Ass’n v.
640
21. State ex rel. Okl. Bar
and conclusions
on all
issues
of
1361,
(1982).
P.2d
1362
law_"
[Emphasis added.]
complete
A
record is essential for review of
Downing,
19.
ex
Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v.
22. State
rel.
disciplinary proceeding. The material to be
Okl.,
1120,
(1990);
Bar
State ex rel.
804 P.2d
1123
beyond
reviewed is never to be deemed settled
Peveto, Okl.,
P.2d 50
Bar Ass’n v.
730
Oklahoma
(1986);
5
always
ability
expand
re
it. The record
our
Lowe,
21,
supra note
The circumstances of a al represents departure conduct a marked from (Rule 6)26 leged professional misconduct are these standards. important searching in for solutions that by The facts respondent’s admitted the imperative would accord with the law’s of stipulation,34coupled findings with the of the ensuring public protection the its due from PRT, sufficiently pat- evidence that Bolton’s lawyers.27 complaint substandard tern of behavior is at odds with the standard against pressed Bolton pro was as a Rule 6 legal representation public of to which the is ceeding, lawyer’s which focuses on the of entitled. On de novo review the four counts
fending past conduct.28 complaint of the supported Bar’s are found by convincing proof. clear and record (1) charged
Bolton has been
lacking diligence
promptness
repre
lawyer’s
A
license
a is
certificate
(2)
clients,29
senting
keeping
his
not
his client
public
fitness to deal with the
informed,30
neglecting
his clients
legal practitioner.
as a
Public
confidence
expediting litigation consistently with their
practitioner
the
proper
is essential
to the
interests,31 and
comply
failure to
with the
functioning
profession.
the
lawyer’s
A
Governing
Rules
Disciplinary Proceedings by
adversely
misconduct
reflects on the entire
responding untimely
inquiry.32
to the Bar’s
because
exhibits a lack of commitment
competence
ie.,
Professional
acting
—
causes,
courts,
to the clients’
and to
promptly in pending matters and communi
other members of the Bar. Bolton’s actions
cating with a
mandatory
client —is a
obli
call
imposition
for the
gation imposed upon
practitioners.
licensed
onerous,
obligation
Albeit
very
is the
In light
established
expected
lawyer.
minimum to be
from a
It
history
neglect,35
the General Counsel’s
epitomizes professionalism. Anything less is
recommendation that
suspended
Bolton be
lawyer’s duty
breach of a
serve the
from
ninety days
of law for
is
record,
client.33 As reflected
accordingly
Bolton’s
approved.36
pay
Bolton shall
(Formal Proceedings
26. Rule
Supreme
Conduct,
Before
supra
homa Rules of Professional
note
Tribunal),
Responsibility
Court and Professional
3.
Proceedings, 5
O.S.1991,
1, App.
proceeding
Ch.
1-A. A Rule 6
33.
note
at
lawyer’s past professional
focuses on the
miscon-
duct.
rejected
34. When the PRT
the Bar’s recommen-
ninety-day suspension,
dation of a
Donnelly, supra
note 24 at 547-48.
given
opportunity
was
an
Stipu-
to withdraw his
Findings
lated
Fact and Conclusions
Law
Agreed
Discipline.
Recommendation
approach,
Re-
necessary
This
which is
to safe-
spondent declined to withdraw his
guard
admissions
public
protect
judicial
interest and to
accepted
stipulation.
and the PRT
See Down-
system,
designed
to deter the
from
1122;
ing, supra note
804 P.2d at
see also
offending behavior
future and to discour-
*8
Perkins, Okl.,
State ex rel. Okl. Bar
v.
Ass’n
757
age other members of the Bar from like derelic-
825,
(1988).
P.2d
Arnett, Okl.,
tions. State ex rel. Okl. Bar Ass’n v.
170,
(1991);
815 P.2d
State ex rel. Okl. Bar
Denton, Okl.,
Ass’n v.
35.
See
note 2.
1.3,
purpose
29. Rule
choosing
Oklahoma
36. For the
appropriate
Rules of
Professional
Conduct, supra
imposed,
discipline
sanction to be
note 3.
recommended
respondent's
for a
compared
misconduct is often
disposition
with the
made in like cases decided
1.4,
30. Rule
Oklahoma Rules of Professional
past.
discipline
in the
This ensures that
Conduct, supra note 3.
meted out
the court is consistent with that
imposed by us in similar cases. See State ex rel.
3.2,
31. Rule
Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Busch, Okl.,
Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.
853 P.2d
Conduct, supra note 3.
(1993);
1995-96
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar
Okl.,
Cummings,
Ass'n v.
863 P.2d
1174-75
5.2,
32. Rule
Governing
(1993);
Disciplinary
Rules
Pro-
Downing, supra note
BAR Disciplinary Pro- Governing Rule Rules v. 1-A, O.S.1991, 1, App. and he ceedings, 5 Ch. McMANUS, Respondent. Larry Rendall practice law acknowledges that his license to only upon compliance may be reinstated OBAD No. procedures pre- the conditions and SCBD No. 3934. Governing Disci- by Rule scribed Supreme Court of Oklahoma. O.S.1991, 1, App. plinary Proceedings, 5 Ch. *9 1-A. incurred totalling were 7. Costs $734.02 ORDER pend- counts now during investigation of against respondent. ing HODGES, Justice. Chief pending dis- resignation Respondent’s Upon affi- consideration compliance davit, ciplinary proceedings is compliance with Rule prepared