*1 guidance by “Bench “with whatever respondent claimed that law some in that area”. authority Bar of the State of Oklahoma Boards have and State disinterested, totally incompetent encourages totally respondent the Court to The totally respect my act panel and unfit to with proceeding to the trial so disability”. ‘liability’ epileptic and traumatic practice he his that show fitness However, 15. Complainant’s Exhibit “guidance”. with law in their entire- these documents are viewed sign Mr. use and Brewer’s person ty we that no reasonable believe stationery holding himself an attor out as give allegations, any credence to would suspen an ney at law while under order of merely severity they that reflect the and clearly improper. therefore sion was We mood-swings that the trauma-induced tor- further decline to remand the matter for days.6 Fur- Respondent mented those proceedings the Professional Re before ther, all such documents were written in requested. We sponsibility Tribunal de hearing 1982 and well before the time, any impose, cline to at this more respondent’s proceedings, reinstatement respondent is still discipline on the who respon- against used suspension from our order 1982. Complainant therein had chosen to do dent Motion tax costs denied. discipline to further so. We decline respondent for his statements. DOOLIN, HODGES, ALMA WILSON respondent using VI Count involves KAUGER, JJ., concur. printed envelopes with the checks and spondent’s “Attorney and the name words C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, appearing Law” thereon. This Count at LAVENDER, J., concur in result. allegation respon- also includes the SIMMS, J., disqualified. had a sign dent outside his office period of that he time which indicated includes at law. This Count
allegations concerning dispute the re-
spondent hired had with individual respondent build him a desk. respondent
The evidence shows that the envelopes printed use checks and bear- did “Attorney ing his the notation name and COMPANY, INC., an TIMMONS OIL sign Law” and he did front have corporation, Appellee, Oklahoma approximately his one month office for bearing “Attorney his and the name words dispute individual NORMAN, at Law”. The with the individually, M. James merely dispute a work- a bonafide Mart, Appellant. Apache Mini d/b/a compensation over the amount of owed. er No. 74069. dispute ultimately The resolved with parties compromising. respondent The admits the truth requests institute allegations and that we monitor
special program that would practices he law. respondent while expert respondent’s medical respondent practice opinion that the secretly engaged in Complainant’s over Exhibit states that the State of Oklahoma Bench, Bar, through gen- Complain- “segments populace past years others”. ten long erally also so for so ant’s document states ... have worked hard Exhibit ” are, destroy knowing said enemies at 2. “Not secretive me.... Id. In another document of, only presume that respondent complains of acts I can all members "the secret unknown, my enemy,Id. Judiciary judiciary are to me members of the
overruled the trial court on October attorney was directed fee issue and was not related or affected judg- in error on the ment on the merits. The motion for new attorney having trial on the been over- 23, 1989, ruled on fil- October without the subsequent new or amended tion in error within renders the attorney untimely presented. fee issue as Motion to dismiss as to fee issue granted. 1.11(d). is DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.
HODGES, LAVENDER, DOOLIN, WILSON, ALMA KAUGER SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
OPALA, V.C.J., SIMMS, J., dissent.
OPALA, Justice, Vice Chief SIMMS, J., joins, dissenting. The court concludes is not dismissible in toto. I cannot accede untimely its view. I would hold that it is
bring any errors for corrective relief. whether, question before us is con-
formably Appellate with the Rules of Pro- Cases, Supp. in cedure Civil O.S.1987 ORDER App. Rule 1.11 Ch. and O.S.1981 HARGRAVE, Chief Justice. 1.12, App. appellant’s Ch. dismiss, Appellee’s motion to con petition in error was filed to tender response in in tained for our review either the initial decision granted part, part. in denied in Under the ruling or a on counsel fees. later-effected Appellate Rules of Procedure in Civil July The initial decision was rendered O.S.1981, Cases, App. Ch. appel- the trial court denied 1.11, appellant could have affected a lant’s motion for new trial and for in appeal by either error judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In thirty days July of the trial court’s expressly the trial court of a motion trial on 1989 denial pending future mo- served for resolution judgment, the merits of could have tion for counsel fees. At this two until the trial court’s resolu waited timely appeal for a were available a reserved fee issue on 1.11. under Rule Under subsections 20, 1989, by September within (d)(1) timely appeal that Rule a thirty days of new or amended filed lodged by error. in error was filed of the trial court’s 2, 1989, timely appeal thus alternative, pur- 1989 decision. In the merits of the (d)(2), the terms of suant subsection 1.11(c). 1989. Rule where, here, the trial reserves fees, on counsel Appellant’s motion for new 29, 1989, disposition of the unde- was filed on have waited extend hence effective to issue and then—within termined 1.12(b). 991(a) and Rule O.S.1981 days following that issue’s resolution— provides: review of errors That filed a error for these two consecutive decisions. both of (b) trial on Effect *3 1.11(c), (d) are: of Rule The exact terms appeal time. Allowance of Attor- Appeal Prior to post- motion new trial or a If a for Party Not
ney to a Shall Constitute Fees judgment for notwith- judgment motion Appeal. time, a Premature the filed in no standing verdict is appeal from the party shall decision the trial court to award attor- Failure of begin any prevent appeal not a time shall not to run ney action shall fee in disposed of. motion shall have been by the trial court’s deci- the party aggrieved files, to an seeking party a If more than one action questions from sion all other of time, to by in this one of these motions directed court review of such decision, appeal not filing time shall petition in error. the same timely of shall begin to run until all of motions determine the issue may The trial court O.S.Supp.1969 disposed of. appeal have been as fees after to 991(a). such issue lodged may or reserve § same, together determine on Appellant filed the in error legal for related application the new-trial motion while services, the matter Because of still stood undetermined. court. from this motion, pendency appeal this was of that (d) Attorney Appeal after Allowance premature point filing. of its Fees. O.S.1981, 991(a). § (1) court resolves the Where trial option one un- There still remained last during pendency issue 1.11(d)(2) obtaining der Rule for review of appeal party aggrieved may, of the the initial decision and later error, timely petition or an filing a achieved on counsel fees. This be error, have petition in a review amended filing a new in error only by either ruling. of such or in error an amended within rul- (2) the trial court reserves Where day the ing attorneys party fee issue a on the disposed the motion new trial for aggrieved by the court’s decision on deci- directed to the counsel-fee questions may obtain review of other or No in error amended sion. questions by timely pe- such other days filed within rul- tition in error after the trial court’s ruling on the end-of-the-line counsel-fee attorneys fee issue. on 1.11(d)(2) plea. Thus the terms Rule short, invoked. In none were not 1989 decision because available followed, thirty days, by the not for proper 1.11 was Rule exercised 1.11(c) of a (d)(1) no invo- longer available for became (d)(2),supra, for subsection cation. As any support does 1.12 offer Neither Sep- awarded counsel fees trial court on declaring this to time- for case tember 1989. At Rule, ly brought. Under that the time file, posture stood in a for initial appeal the 1989 decision— consisting of a of a motion for denial initial for both the decision by any trial —could not be extended ruling on fees. the later counsel reconsider,” de- other “motion however 1.11(d)(2). 1.12(c)(1)provides: nominated. appeal from
Appellant’s Sep- any instead filed on I. The time to decision counsel disposes timely plea relief for tember motion or provided under 12 O.S.1971 to the directed § (whether sought application, counsel fees. trial, I would that this reconsid- therefore hold dismissal, fatally flawed re-examination, and direct eration, rehearing or to decision), modify begins vacate or
run decision and not be from that . , ,, -i reconsideration, by any plea for extended no matter how denominated. upon
If motions motions regarded post- as authorized to were be then, appeal, pone perfection Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLA- STATE Salyer v. National Trailer pointed out in ASSOCIATION, *4 HOMA BAR Inc., Okl., Convoy, [1986], P.2d 727 1361 Complainant, interminably ex- could be time v. delayed tended and MOSS, Respondent. William R. to “reconsider” an successive motions (Two Cases) decision, such as one appealable, terminal trial. motion for new Succes- denies a SCBD Nos. or for sive motions to reconsider to affect time. are inefficacious Co., Drilling Home
Philbrock v. 117 Okl. Archer, v. Sowers [1926]; 246 P. 457 Aug. As Corrected v. Starr [1932]; 422 161 Okl. 17 P.2d Woods, [1933]; P.2d 162 Okl. Hobbs, 204 Okl. Adams v. 226 P.2d Leche, Manos v. [1950]; Okl. Equally 236 P.2d unauthorized 693 [1951]. new trial ad- are successive motions for judgment. v. dressed to the same Potts Rubesam, [1915]; 156 P. 54 Okl.
Boorigie Boyd,
v.
41 Okl.