*1 OK 21 ex rel. OKLAHOMA of Oklahoma STATE ASSOCIATION, Complainant,

BAR LAYTON, Respondent. Adina

Jennifer No. 6018.

SCBD

Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 25, 2014.

March *2 Lynn Hendryx, Ogden, Katherine M.

Gina Oklahoma, City, Oklahoma Bar Association. Northeutt, Raley, Wesley John Ponea

John Oklahoma, City, Respondent. KAUGER, J. alleged

"I1 The Bar Association that Jenni- 1) Layton (respondent): neglected fer to dis- opposing the court and counsel close to going testify inconsistent- witness 2) statement; ly previous police with his falsely spoken denied that she had It during the trial. witness before and/or tion/misunderstanding judge, her conduct violated Rules 3.8

contends that her lack of intent or ulterior motives evidence/foiling to disclose evi [falsifying making an inadvertent mistake. tribunal],23.8[specialresponsibilities dence to *3 determine that the cumulative cir- We [professional mis prosecutor],3 of a and 8.4 that trial cumstances show court's failure to of the Rules of Professional Con conduct] a create transeribed record of bench confer- 0.8,2011 Ch.1, 3-A, duct, App. and Rule 1.8 ences and chamber conferences in this seri- profession]5 of the Rules to the [discredit degree rape coupled ous first with the Proceedings

Governing Disciplinary 5 O.S. complaining attorney's in-court defense be- The Bar Association App.

2011 Ch. I-A. havior, contemporaneous testimony and the suspension. length" of The re

seeks "some respondent, of the reflect the nature of the

spondent argues that she should not be disci proceedings. presented, surrounding Under the facts the

plined given the circumstances events, alleged respondent's

the the miscommunica- violation of the rules does not Conduct, negate guilt of 2. Rule 3.3 of the Rules Professional ecutor that tends to the 0.$.2011 provides: and, App. offense, Title 5 Ch. 3-A mitigates accused or the in con- (a) knowingly: lawyer sentencing, A shall not nection with disclose to the de- [alse (1) make a statement of fact or law to a unprivileged fense and to the tribunal all miti- correct a false statement tribunal or fail to of gating prosecutor, information known to the previously fact law made to the material or except prosecutor when the is relieved of this by lawyer; tribunal the responsibility by protective a order of the tri- (2) legal fail to disclose to the tribunal authori- bunal; controlling jurisdiction ty in the known to the lawyer directly position adverse to the of Conduct, 4. Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional by opposing the and not disclosed client coun- 1, App. provides: Title 5 0.S.2011 Ch. 3-A sel; or (3) lawyer offer evidence the knows to be professional lawyer It is misconduct for a to: (a) client, false. If a or a attempt violate or to violate the Rules of lawyer, lawyer's by lawyer, witness called has offered mate- Conduct, knowingly Professional assist or in- lawyer rial evidence and the comes to know of so, through another duce to do or do so falsity, lawyer its shall take reasonable another; acts of measures, including, necessary, remedial if dis- (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adverse- lawyer may closure to the tribunal. A refuse to ly lawyer's honesty, on the trustworthiness or lawyer reasonably offer evidence that the be- lawyer respects; fitness as a other lieves is false. (c) engage involving dishonesty, in conduct (4) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when fraud, misrepresentation; deceit or necessary assisting disclosure is to avoid a (d) engage prejudicial in conduct that is to the criminal or fraudulent act (b) the client. justice; administration of lawyer represents A who a client in an (e) imply ability state or to influence im- adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a properly government agency or official or to person engage, engaging intends to is or has achieve means that results violate Rules engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct re- proceeding law; of Professional Conduct or other lated to the shall take reasonable or (f) measures, knowingly judicial including, necessary, assist or officer remedial if dis- applicable in conduct is a violation of closure to the tribunal. (c) (a) (b) paragraphs judicial The duties stated in rules of conduct or other law. proceeding, continue to the conclusion of the apply compliance requires even if disclo- Governing Disciplinary 5. Rule 1.3 of the Rules protected by sure of information otherwise 0.$.2011 Proceedings, App. pro- Ch. 1-A Rule 1.6. vides: (d) parte proceeding, lawyer In an ex shall by any lawyer The commission of act con- inform the tribunal of all material facts known conduct, standards which will the tribunal trary enable prescribed professional whether in the course of his ca- make decision, an informed whether or not the - otherwise, pacity, or which act would reason- facts are adverse. ably bring upon legal be found to discredit 3.8(d)

3. Rule of the Rules of Professional Con- profession, grounds disciplinary shall be duct, provides Title 5 3-A action, whether or not the act ais felony pertinent: misdemeanor, or a crime at all. Conviction prosecutor in The a criminal case shall: proceeding prece- a criminal is not a condition (d) timely . make disclosure to the defense of imposition discipline. dent to the pros- all evidence or information known to the cooperating anyone's witness on discipline. The bar was not a imposition

require dismissed, unsuccessfully though the re- Even the State proceeding is behalf

disciplinary charges, attempted to contact Miller on several occa- is exonerated

spondent sions, only up denied. served in time to show to assess costs is he was application morning day

on the of the first Miller in the witness room saw FACTS that he did not want to be where he told her there and that he needed to leave because of {3 grievance The Bar Association's job. him that he would not She informed felony respondent stems from a day, be needed that but that he better 28-24, 2012, in May rape criminal trial held up day the next because he was still show *4 County respondent court. The

Kay district subpoena. under prosecutor. Three different served as the were

lawyers represented the three men who day, again reluctantly 16 The next Miller conspiracy, in consolidated cases for on trial appeared testify. Layton the trial degree rape by instru- degree rape, first first Miller for about 90 seconds talked to before mentation, sodomy kidnaping. forcible into courtroom while he was on she went the phone explaining the with his boss his ab for the T4 Antral Miller was witness day, during from work. Later that sence police report In a which was

prosecution. break, Layton spoke with Miller for lunch counsel,6 Miller stated

provided to defense seconds, asking about 30 him about other 4 or 5 a.m. on the approximately that at people party. who were at the In one of morning alleged rape, the victim came of the conversations, Layton these admits house, through in the un to his let herself walking away when she was she heard Miller door, him. She locked back and awakened Cuz, something "I mumble like can't believe him had crying and she told that she

was her," raped she did Kat and Soul but not raped nearby house. Milter stated been at a anything identity about it because the think raped did tell me who her. She that "she alleged attackers was not issue it." Miller was did not tell me who had done respondent did not disclose to the case. The hap friends with the defendants and also any had defense counsel that she talked

pened to be a cousin of one of the defen Mil Miller at all before he testified.7 When always had maintained dants. victim stand, break, the after the ler did take

that she knew that the three defendants lunch "they victim told him he testified that the raped her and that she told this to Miller. cousin, Kerry and Kat raped me. Your Identity of the defendants was not an issue explained Miller firmer raped me." case, surprise. Respondent had nor a of the defendants. these were the nicknames to the defense that Miller would testi

stated

fy reports previously provid consistent with surprise came as a 17 Miller's statements ed to them. they were incon- to defense counsel because prior police report wherein any sistent with his respondent nor

1 5 Neither the him that the victim did not tell the stated opportunity counsel had an to dis-

defense alleged Accordingly, attackers. day the first names of her

cuss the case with Miller before objected defense counsel on the actively subpoenas Miller avoided all three

of trial none, ment, any, significant provid- if if summaries was

6. The written witness and exhibit list compliance ed statement, oral reports made in connec- b. law enforcement § Code, O.S$.2011 Discovery case, particular ... tion with the provides pertinent part: which

A. Disclosure of Evidence the State. 3.8(d) Con of the Rules of Professional 7. Rule defense, 3-A, Upon request duct, the state shall see note Title 5 following: required timely supra, requires prosecutors to disclose the make a. the names and addresses of witnesses of all known evidence disclosures to the defense trial, mitigate together may negate or which the state intends to call at or information that guilt of the accused. relevant, written or recorded state- with their court, "just yesterday and that he came testimony had not been

grounds that Miller's They, along today." Layton to trial.8 not correct prior to them did

disclosed technicality, inaccurate nor did she do so at respondent, and the dis judge,

with the day's proceedings the end of the court when at the bench.

cussed the matter judge summarizing objections was felony though a serious Even this was T8 Rather, the record. allowed the court to judge, apparently con criminal the trial any- believe that she had never discussed

tinuing practice, chose not to in his usual all, thing with Miller at when in fact she had reco conferences on the official clude bench "spoken" very briefly pre- to him while she transcript is no Consequently, rd.9 there pared during start the trial and chaos between the

the conversation which occurred occurring which was with the arrival day,

judge lawyers. Later in the after victim, witnesses, family and the victim's excused, jury the trial went on members. happened the record and restated what dur {12 expressed One of the defense counsel ing at the bench. He stated the conversation possibly concern that could not have the statement at the bench was made known to ask Miller about what someone had State, was that the State "to be fair spoken their hand unless she had with him *5 prior had not met with this witness to trial" testimony. prior judge to his instructed anticipate and that the "State did not that he all to in his counsel convene chambers first testify

would in the manner he testified to thing morning. happened the next What day." judge's again chambers was not recorded transcribed, leaving or this Court with little judge T9 The trial also found no lack of By everyone's to review. account was compliance discovery part. on of the State's tense, confrontational, but, and emotional. counsel, According to the defense when the Apparently yelled Layton, judge at ask- Layton

judge "spoken" asked if she had to ing if "spoken" prior she had to Miller Miller before she said that had she not testimony trial? Her was that rather than "spoken" testimony prior to him about his said, explain expand let her on what she Consequently, judge trial overruled the merely kept accusing lying he her of to him objections. judge defense counsel's The trial in court and demanded she "fell on her lawyers did allow the to add their own com- sword." of "their own of ments recollection the bench clear, actually 1 13 isWhat not

conferences" if he were incorrect. is what was said in this conference because there were Layton continued direct examination slight person's descriptions variations in each Miller, asking Miller to describe what course, what occurred in chambers. Of night happened rape. on the of the She also Judge lawyers having were to recall Bug" asked if a man nicknamed "June had during happened what had a trial that had anything responded in his hand. Miller that occurred over 18 months earlier. The de- Bug very June was intoxicated and car- was fense counsel now seemed to "understand" rying tequila. ques- a bottle of This line of Layton admitted that she did in fact

tioning objection drew another which was going testify know Miller was Layton again overruled because denied victim had identified the three defendants. speaking prior with Miller to trial. Layton insists that she never knew that he going change testimony. his examination,

11 On cross Miller testified anyone

that he had not talked with T14 She also insists that she misunder- Attorney's testimony

District judge office about his stood the trial when he asked her if 3.8(d) only Transcript hearing, August

8. Not does Rule Rules Pro- of PRT Conduct, fessional Title 5 pp. 239-40. 3-A, see note but the disclosure, supra, require § Code, 22 0.$.2001 Discovery see note also it. supra, requires jam- The Victim Witness Center is interpreted She "spoken" had to Miller.

she packed people with at all times. Antral mean, him spoken had "about

this to she Miller has not been available to the State any meaning- testimony," or have kind of because he is the cousin of one of the preparation him-neither

ful witness good defendants and the friend of the oth- maintains she never occurred. She

which completely er defendant. He has been change going to his testimo- knew Miller was year available to the defendants for and- just yelled at ny. said that a-half have not been able to interview We explain any- her to

her and would allow not, him, any has nor has law enforcement kept her a Bar and thing, instead called but Office, employee Attorney's of the District her sword." What is insisting she "fell on phone attempts despite numerous calls judge's primary that the trial apparent was and-a-half, year him to talk to for a be- call herself a "liar" to concern was cause he is related defendants the trial court and the Apparently, him. good friends of theirs. never on the same wave respondent were

length. stop you Let THE COURT: minute. me

{15 Layton knew Regardless don't, of whether LAYTON: Your Honor. MS. Please stand, going say on the

what Miller was let me Please finish. court was convinced that she the trial No, you THE COURT: because made a him having "spoken" ever at

lied about up I want to follow on. Has statement point out that all and that she did not employee law enforcement official or lying he hadn't Miller was when said Attorney's District Office contacted Mr. Attorney's spoken to the District office be- and he to talk Miller refused to them? "fix" the matter was to fore trial His effort to *6 attempted MS. LAYTON: No. have to We given had jury

instruct that Miller false him, phones, messages contact left on cell testimony when he stated that he did not people talked to around him and told him anyone Attor-

speak with from the District him, we wanted to talk to and he has not jury could consider ney's office and that the speak any- returned calls and would not to in their deliberations. The instruc-

that tact People gone body. have to his home to no further information as to tion offered attempt subpoenas to serve him and he is exactly was or when what communication there. cannot contact him. 'The never We it occurred. only way finally we did serve him is there [ During attorney defense Lof- fireman, is a was a fire and a who also to tis demanded that the matter be referred there, deputy, kept him a reserve made based on the the Oklahoma Association phone got call and him served and he was respondent's give failure to the defense coun- happy. told that time if But he was testimony. change as to Miller's sel notice subpoena, did not honor that he could he necessary Layton's response long, be- is but only be arrested. That is the he reason record, it was transcribed on the dur- cause brought him to up, showed and his uncle stage

ing literally trial It sets the for how get make sure he didn't arrested. So he transeript day.

the events unfolded Tuesday appear subpoena under morn- did May pp. proceedings 16-22 ing.

provides: trying I'm At the same time when to all, much about

MS. LAYTON: First of so testify to on the most prepare a victim happened yesterday life, has been miscon- family

what day got of her I've her horrible all, with, happened there, is-first I easy

strued. What who are not to deal pic- paint of a frankly. got

want to at least somewhat Mr. Loftis's assis- quite I've my way going calling through on in world all the

ture of what is tant slut trials, trying deal with

during compared to what is the courthouse. I'm to these deputies talking me about that. that and to

happening here. meanwhile, I'm, like, oh, Mr. Goodman tells me he So well that's kind of inter-

And prelim drunk, my esting. for a at the same If he's

needs officer unconscious time, seeing everything there, whole how is he got people in I

time. I've other All even know who are. of this they're saying seeing?

don't he is happening same time.

is at the Honor, Interestingly enough, Your that's

Meanwhile, Miller in. I'm Antral walks not what he testified an hour later on the

actually up, shocked he shows but he does. provided updated stand. had I So wit- approximately spend

I have two minutes to summary ness exhibit list that had his later

with him before testifies testimony, it wouldn't have even been ac- them:; day. I tell Do not let this man things curate. That's one of the leave; going I'm to need him later in the seript makes this so difficult with this

day. they're expecting provide. me Had I that, provided that wouldn't have ac- been phone when I even He's on see him. curate, anyway, testify he didn't because couple get spend I of minutes with the same an hour later about Lee Coburn literally phone him while he is on the I when asked him about how much he'd time, employer. At the same he's com- unconscious, being drink and lying plaining: supposed I'm to be at work. I through around party. the whole He testify. you don't want I told I don't was, say testimony didn't that. What his testify.

want to I don't want to be here. helpful was more to them about Lee Co- going They're going I'm to be a snitch. burn. testify. hurt me. I don't want to Then, you're I going said: And to testi- trying And I'm to deal with him like a {y- testify, you've got mother: You have to REPORTER:; THE You need to slow truth, you-you you'd tell the said tell the Layton. sorry. down Ms. I'm truth, know, you're-you that's what I'm

dealing with this. as-again, LAYTON: MS. Then he's on phone, literally, employer with his phone employer So he's on the with his barely talking standing to me and I'm say gave and I to him: You statement there, spending about two minutes with *7 you police. going testify Are to truth- him; say I you're going him. to And

fully you police? to what told the And testify honestly that Alicia Southern came says: Yes. you erying help, and I understand literally trying get I'm out the door as you help trying couldn't her-I'm not to knocking Ed Goodman is on the door tell- guilty him make feel or bad-but she came officer,

ing my me he needs case and I you happened and told this to her? say-because turn to him and I remember says, shaking And he kind of his head: I keeps harping that the Defense on this Cuz, can't believe Kat and Soul did that to going testify Lee Coburn that's that he her, going but I-I'm to tell the truth. say sees consensual I sex-so to him: Is you seeing Lee-do remember Lee Co- And that's when he mumbled that state- burn party-cause at this I don't think time, Honor, ment. And at that Your it why my there's reason I can't ask never occurred to me he had never said they

witnesses for a few extra details when preliminary that before. I have read hear- testify, just everybody like else does-and ing transcripts, I've listened to seven disks say: you I Did see Lee Coburn at this full of interviews in the last week. I have he's, Yeah, party? And like: he's drunk read statements after statements. I don't time, and unconscious the whole cause he's every single have one memorized word-for- carrying something. been around a fifth of It word. never occurred to me at that run,

I liquor, retype don't know much about I moment that I needed to don't

knowwhat he said. list for these attor- Defense exhibit/witness No, moment, that, thinking,

neys. chambers and said: never heard I left that Honor, just thought I testify. That nev- Your about the bot- going he's

thank God liquor. I tle because of could have contin-

er occurred to me. ued that. I never intended to mislead or testifying, objection he's boom the Then bench, lie. we were at When we were occurs, up to the bench for the we come talking about notice issues. they're- trial and

hundredth time

they're yelling they don't know that infor- jury acquitted 17 The the defendants of they bring up asked me-and

mation You later, charges. all the Two months one

my say: This isn't in the witness list and Loftis, attorneys, the three defense Seott list, says with the

witness consistent complaint alleging Layton filed a bar

reports. violated the Rules of Professional Conduct lying to the court. The other two defense say: got And I I never to interview this attorneys join filing would the com- couldn't find him couldn't

witness. We We plaint, provide but did their affidavits I subpoena him till the last minute. And concerning their versions of what occurred at say: got I never to interview this witness. prepared the trial Loftis an affidavit for one subpoena him couldn't couldn't find We We sign, paragraphs of them to but he felt two minute. him till the last opinion-based it were that Loftis wanted him

I think I even mentioned the fire. Ms. say Layton he believed had committed

Ramsey violation, the list in her band. even has unwilling but he some to do that. you say: you Did know he was

And testify you have

going to to that? Could matter, investigating 118 After given notice? complaint Bar Association filed a with this May alleging Court on Honor, And I said: Your I never saw respondent engaged in one count of miscon today, subpoe- until he was

that man until 3.3, 8.8, duct in violation of Rules and 8.4 of testify. I naed to come here to didn't the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule say going know he was that. Proceedings Disciplinary Governing 1.3 of the Rules talking I would-we were about notice. when she foiled to advise the trial 10 I intended to lie to the Court. I never court and the defense counsel that she had literally split I'm knew that second as briefly talked to the witness while he was at

walking hearing I out the door. remember answered, the courthouse for the trial

him mumble: Cat whatever those nick- denying any wrongdoing. explained She in a many names are. I've heard so nicknames letter to the Association: names and all that. this case and street judge] Boyd [the When asked me mumbling I did remember him that. So *8 question, p.m. day on the of 4:15 second you

when we went back in chambers and thought asking I he was me if I had you me: Did know that? It clicked asked testimony talked to the witness about his that, yes, I did know that a few minutes or going testify and knew he different- hours, whatever, he So I before testified. ly than what he had told Detective Sher- going your-in your in wasn't to stand no, ron. I told him I believed 100% When No, say: I chambers and had never heard giving that I was him an honest answer. I that information before. any- intended to lie never to the court or questions.

I answered those If I had important one I think it else. is also great conspiracy

created this to some note that the witness testified under oath

lie, your thing simply I could have stood in to the exact same when the defense 3, supra; note Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Profes- Conduct, 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Rule Conduct, 3-A, 0.$.2011 App. sional Title 5 Ch. 3-A, Title Ch. see note 5 O0.$.2011 App. supra; Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional 4, supra. see note Conduct, 3-A, App. see Title 5 0.S.2011 Ch. question agreed "f-ing"] open he used the word in him the same

attorneys asked presence print media court and in the of one of us testifying. Neither

when he was journalists any apparent rebuke from without day con- encounters that like our brief

felt attorneys any of the other or the trial court. the district attor- 'speaking with

stituted fact, blatantly press turned to the and In testimony.' your ney's office about they quote them could him No one told {19 hearing PRT held a on Au may seemed concerned that Loftis have vio September 2018. Several gust 22 and the Rules of Professional Conduct lated hearing at the facts were revealed additional by letting in or his staff this court outburst partial jury

which were not reflected by calling the victim her a slut.11 harass transcripts which were submitted with However, oversight may resolve itself facts, In addition to the above the record. disciplinary proceeding hearing because the per hearing testimony also revealed the 17, 2018, September the PRT re ended on against both and

sonal bias of Loftis 12, 2013, port was filed on November and on respondent employer. The and Loftis 21, 20183, charged November Loftis was got along

agree that never or liked each Kay County, multiple including febnies in

other. Lofits called the either a perjury, preparation subordination of false of "f-ing evidence,

"-ing bring idiot" or bitch" different conspiracy [two exhibits as and penal witnesses, contraband into a institute.12 given by

accounts were both Although bring disciplin- person's compatible this Court does not ance that the conduct is ary discipline. proceedings, professional obligations lawyer; we are the arbiter of with the (b) lawyer the Rules of Con- having supervisory The Preamble to Professional a direct authori- duct, 1, App. provides: 3-A ty lawyer Ch. over the non shall make reasonable pertinent part: person's efforts to that the conduct is ensure compatible obligations professional with the of lawyer's A conduct should conform to the lawyer; law, requirements professional of both (c) lawyer responsible a shall be for conduct of lawyer's and in the service to clients business person be a such that would violation personal lawyer A affairs. should use the engaged Rules of Professional Conduct if only legitimate procedures purposes law's for lawyer if: and not to harass or intimidate others. A (1) knowledge or, orders with the lawyer lawyer respect the le should demonstrate conduct, specific ratifies the conduct it, gal system and those who serve includ involved; ing judges, lawyers public other officials. (2) lawyer comparable partner is a or has lawyer's duty, necessary, While it when is managerial authority in the law firm in which action, challenge the rectitude of official it is person employed, supervi- is or has direct lawyer's legal duty uphold process. also a sory authority person, over the and knows of Conduct, Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional consequences the conduct at a time when its 1, App. provides pertinent 0.S.2011 Ch. 3-A mitigated can be avoided or but fails take part: reasonable remedial action. professional lawyer It is misconduct for a to: Governing Disciplinary 1.3 of Rule the Rules (a) attempt violate or to violate the Rules of Proceedings, see note Rule 1.5 of the supra; Conduct, knowingly Professional assist or in Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, Rules so, through duce another to do or do so 1, App. provides: ©.S.2011 Ch. 1-A another; ... acts adopted the This Court has Oklahoma Rules (d) engage prejudicial in conduct that is Conduct, adopted by Professional American justice; administration ... Association, acting through its House of Conduct, Rule 3.5 of the Rules of Professional Delegates August adopted by on provides: 3-A Delegates the House of of the Oklahoma Bar A shall not: *9 21, 1986, Association on November as subse- (d) engage disrupt ... in conduct intended to a Court, quently by may modified this and as it tribunal.... Court, by hereafter be modified as the Conduct, of Rule 5.3 ©.$.2011 the Rules of Professional professional lawyers. standard of conduct of all 1, provides: App. Ch. 3-A Any lawyer violating these of Rules Profession- respect lawyer employed With to a non or subject discipline, al Conduct shall be as lawyer: retained or associated with a (a) provided. herein partner, lawyer individually a who or together lawyers possesses compa with other Docket, According Kay County managerial authority 12. Crimi- rable a law firm shall Felony charges firm nal were filed Loftis on make reasonable efforts to ensure that the giving in effect measures assur- has reasonable judicial 21, November 2013. This Court takes not wish to interfere with the Bar of I do opposed the election publicly

T 20 Loftis investigation process in the of Attorney, calling him miserable Association's

the District Kay complaint only of and Noble I write to lift Jennifer the citizens

failure seeking valuable, ethical, on planned also and moral mem up He as a

Counties. respondent, in 2014.13 The the DA of our focalbar.16

replace ber witnesses, hand, according to on the other planned, Nor were her actions schemed or case, reputation for hones had a

prior to this Rather, justice. premeditated subvert candor, professionalism integrity ty, moment, spur in the they occurred alleged actions in this trial They her testified vigorously rape heat of a contested trial reputation her with were not consistent attorney. A history practicing as a

her work serving eight years in DA T21 After on her behalf said:

judge who testified left, office, private Layton and she is now Apparently, judge the trial is still practice. cases I've had my number of Based on Layton stated waiting for his also apology.17 professional relation Layton, the with Ms. investigator that the for the Bar Association her, other members ship I've had with reply needed to file a written told my throughout, I cannot Bar of our had better show remorse and and that she imagination believe that she inten wildest tell the Bar Association that she had learned the Court.14 tionally wouldmislead phrase her lesson and it as best she could or Judge

Another said: go would harsher on her. The investi Nevertheless, gator denies this. when I imagine that what know of I would not ground, vig lawyer stood her this cause was type would be the of Layton, Ms. that she orously pursued to this Court. deliberately mislead the

person who would opposing counsel for the Court or mislead 12, 2018, 122 On November the PRT de-

party, either one.15 neglected termined that the Association prove convincing clear and evidence judge wrote in a letter to the Bar

A third any violation of 3.8 of the Rules of Profes- that:

Association Appellate hearing August Dockets of District and notice of the 22, 2013, 14. PRT of 323. p. Reese, 86, ¶8, 7, fn. Collier v. Courts. ex rel. Oklahoma State 223 P.3d 966. See State 2013, 22, hearing August p. of 15. PRT Shorthand Re Board Examiners of Certified of v. 91, 1, ¶ Parrish, porters 2006 OK. 7 fn. 152 P.3d Respondent's 2. 16. exhibit 202; Department Mehdipour v. State ex rel. of 546; Corrections, 15, ¶7 OK. fn. transcript proceeding of the PRT dated Myers Lashley, fn. 22, 2013, convicted, suspension August p. feces from m the trial dis- If Loftis Governing practice meeting of law. Rule 7.1 Rules cusses a several weeks or Proceeding, Disciplinary longer, after the trial in which he states: provides: 1-A absolutely I don't I hate that this occurred. has been convicted or has ten- A who here, I want her to here. want to be don't be pur- plea guilty of or nolo contendere dered a painful way just very It's all the around. But plea agreement in to a deferred sentence suant acceptance responsibility there was no any jurisdiction which of a crime demonstrates apology and no to the Court. law, practice regard- lawyer's such unfitness pro- September p. PRT On 539 of the resulted from a less of whether conviction ceeding, Layton regarding subsequent testified guilty plea contendere or from a or nolo judge: discipline subject conversations with verdict after shall words, regardless pendency provided, as herein I don't know if that's his exact but that appeal. of an summer, of that was hehe the theme just-every time that I talked to him about it transcript August p. PRT

13. The times, just couple which was he didn't use provides: like, things He 'Throw those exact words. said county formally haven't filed with the but A. I your yourself remorse. on sword. Show been, obviously, a statement there's Pon- ++ things lying,' like Apologize to me for that. I-my City newspaper intention is to ca seek that office in 2014. *10 124 THE CUMULATIVE CIRCUM- concerning special the re

sional Conduct prosecutor to disclose to the

sponsibilityof a STANCES SHOW THAT THE TRIAL mitigation information known to

defense all IN A COURTS NEGLECT CREATING acknowledges, It and we prosecutor.18 TRANSCRIBED RECORD OF BENCH convincing agree, the clear and evidence that AND CHAMBER CON- CONFERENCES 1) Layton knew Miller did not show that: IN FERENCES THIS SERIOUS FIRST 2) did; testify that such

would as TRIAL, RAPE DEGREE COUPLED exculpate, mitigate, testimony would or ne THE WITH COMPLAINING DEFENSE guilt have been It gate and should disclosed. BEHAVIOR, IN ATTORNEYS COURT violated Rules 3.3 and 8.4 did find that she AND THE CONTEMPORANEOUS TES- Conduct.19 In oth the Rules of Professional RESPONDENT, TIMONY OF THE RE- words, agrees Layton the PRT did er FLECT THE OF THE NATURE PRO- going change not know Miller was CEEDINGS. UNDER THE FACTS testimony, but she lied to the trial PRESENTED, THE RESPONDENTS speaking prior when denied with him OF THE VIOLATION RULES DOES publicly It recommended REQUIRE NOT THE IMPOSITION OF pay that she censured and costs of the DISCIPLINE. investigation in this matter. Regardless findings, of the PRT's matters, disciplinary 125 In argues Association the clear and possesses original jurisdict Court exclusive convincing evidence demonstrated that by agreed findings, ion.21 We are not bound 3.3, 3.8,

respondent did violate Rules and 8.4 law, conclusions of or recommendations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rather, discipline.22 responsi the ultimate Governing Disciplinary Rule 1.8 of the Rules Proceedings.20 type It seeks some of sus bility imposition professional discipline pension public than rather censure. On is ours alone. The Court's review is de novo 12, 2013, November the Bar Association filed considering presented the record as well application an to assess costs discipline.23 as the recommendations for Be $6,438.71. respondent for the amount of On may impose discipline fore we upon attor 11, 2014, February the Bar Association ney, charges must be established clear application amended its for costs to exclude convincing evidence.24 expenditures.

reimbursement of lunch {26 $6,273.71. 3.3, Undeniably,

amended amount is Rules and 8.4 of the 3.8(d) Erickson,

18. Rule of the Rules of Professional Con- 22. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar v. Ass'n duct, 1, 3-A, 0.$.2001 App. Title Ch. see note 550; 2001 OK 29 P.3d State ex rel. 3, Israel, ¶2, 113, supra; Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 2001 OK 25 P.3d Conduct, 1, Title 5 0.$.2001 Ch. 3-A, see App. 2, note supra. 23. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Israel, Ass'n v. see 14, note State ex rel. Conduct, 19. Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Oklahoma Bar Ass'n supra; 1, 3-A, 0.$.2011 2, App. Title Ch. see note 26, ¶7, 268; v. 2001 OK 23 P.3d State Bolusky, supra; Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Dershem, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 2001 OK ¶ 7, 12, P.3d 639. Conduct, 1, Title 5 O.S.2011 Ch 3-A, see App. 4, note supra. 6.12, Governing Disciplinary 24. Rule Rules Pro- O.S.2011, ceeding, App. provides: Ch I-A Conduct,

20. Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional 3-A; 5 0.$.2001 Ch Rule 3.3 of the Rules App. (a) practicable, disciplinary pro- far So as Conduct, of Professional Title 5 ceedings reception and the of evidence shall be 3-A, App. supra. see note governed generally by pro- rules civil ceedings, except provided; as otherwise herein 1.1, Governing Disciplinary 21. Rule Rules Pro repre- shall be entitled to be I-A; 0.$.2001, ceedings, Ch State ex sented counsel (b) charge professional On a of solicitation of Holden, rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n ¶1, 707; ex employment through lay person agency, State rel. Oklahoma Bar or necessary prove lay shall not be that such McMillian, ¶5, Ass'n v. person agency compensation. received

1255 5 require Conduct2 can Rules of Professional expressly requirement reaffirms the alleged knowingly: act be done the 'As honesty the trial court and violat

dor and long knowledge as has the actual certainly bring rules would discredit

ing such law, inquiry clear that a false statement of fact or no profession.26 The record is [or her] need be made as to his motivation clearly the trial

Layton was not candid to making the false statement to show a Miller before his spoke that she court McMillian, rule 770 violation P.2d 899 discussed. To illus

testimony, or what was added). (emphasis Rules, the and to re trate the violation of respondent's argument that she spond to the 8.3(a), purposes 112 For of ORPC Rule judge, the Bar not intend to deceive the did knowingly knowledge means 'actual of the relies on State ex rel. Okla. Association question. person's knowledge fact in A 28, ¶12, P.3d Krug, v.

Ass'n may be inferred from circumstances! ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. and State 0.98.2001, 1, App. (Terminology). Ch. 3-A Johnston, 91, 1993 OK 868 P.2d 1136. Thus, prevail on Count I of its Com- matter, plaint in prove the OBA must Johnston, attorney supra, 27 In was Respondent the physi- more than fact that converting commingling funds accused (Me., cally stapled) copy 'attached' of the making false statements to the court. applica- non-conformed order to her fee attorney The record did not show that Rather, prove tion. the OBA must Re- noted improper motive. The Court spondent knowledge had actual she was require a violation of the Rules does not making Judge a false statement of fact to Krug, intent." In any proof of "bad or evil Le., Croy, the order she attached to attorney supra, alleged was to have made application her fee was a non-conformed by attaching to a tribunal a false statement copy original. request an order of a fee which did not Despite 1 13 the PRT's conclusion that Re- judge's actual order. It was conform to 3.8(a), spondent violated ORPC Rule it copy

shown that she did not realize the was acknowledged Report: 'It its is not cer- judge pointed it

non-conforming until the out [Respondent's] er- tain whether use of the Johnston, supra,

to her. The PRT relied on application roneous order in her fee was occurred to find that a violation of rules words, oversight' In intentional or an other attorney intended regardless of whether the panel questioned itself whether Krug, judge. to deceive the We said Respondent's conduct was done with actual supra: knowledge. Our de novo review of the {11 go Johnston does not as far as the question. evidence leads us to the same suggests. Although

PRT does Johnston

say ... a 'false statement to a tribunal irrelevant, may intent be While intent,

requires proof no or evil nor bad knowledge falsity actual is relevant. material, 1148, Here, id. at it does not

must be if the had misunderstood 3.3(a)'s away require

do with ORPC Rule asking, "actual what alleged knowing that the act done knowledge"

ment was based on a mistake and fact, Johnston,

ly. supra, Krug, supra In the case cited Johnston do case,

makes this clear. The cited OBA v. control The trial court did not have either the 892,

McMillian, 16, bench conference or chamber conference (c) finding against respon- To warrant a 3.3, Conduct, 25. Rule Rules of Professional 3-A, 2, case, App. supra; charge charges ©.S.2011 Ch. see note dent a contested Conduct, Rule 8.4 Rules of Professional 5 O.S. convincing must be established clear and evidence, 3-A, 2011 Ch see note the members of at least two of App. supra. findings. the Trial Panel must concur in the Wolfe, Governing Disciplinary State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n 1.3 Pro- 26. Rule Rules 1-A, (c) ceedings, To warrant a finding against the respondent in a contested case, the charge or charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and at least two of the members of the Trial Panel must concur in the findings.1, note see 988; OK State ex rel. Oklahoma supra. Holden,

Bar Ass'n v. see note supra.

1256 funds, Instead, commingling converting making relying and on its notes

transcribed. court, professional incom- false statements memory, we are asked to everyone's

and profession petence, promptly from her based failure to act and commu-

suspend a clients); nicate with and State ex rel. Okla. clearly appears to be misunder-

upon what Peveto, 182, Bar Ass'n v. 1980 OK 620 P.2d appear

standing does not a to be a or at least (Attorney suspended year 1 ne- for for convincing violation of the rules. clear and knowingly glecting clients' affairs and mak- expressly hindsight, In should have clients). ing false statements to "spoken"

informed the court that she briefly, did not conduct Miller but $830 Discipline to co is fashioned any meaningful discussions about his testi- discipline imposed upon with other incide testimony mony learn that his would differ or lawyers professional for similar acts of misc police report. does from the Her conduct Although onduct.27 this Court strives be requiring discipline. level The not rise to a matters, disciplinary evenhanded and fair in place took within the chaos of conversation case-by-case discipline must be decided on a Witness Center. Her actions Victim unique basis because each situation involves very taken in the heat of a contentious

were transgressions mitigating and factors.28 Dis being and intense trial where she was verbal- cipline persuade should be sufficient ly open attacked a defense counsel attorney that such conduct will not be tolerat disparaging to court and his staff was Mitigating may ed.29 cirenmstances alleged victim There is no evidence of active evaluating attorney's considered both the deceit, nor did the or intentional events re- discip assessing appropriate conduct and sult in kind of unfair trial for the defen- line.30 dants, acquitted charges. were as explaining language

The she used in what 131 This Court is the sole arbi happened was the truth based on actual discipline.31 ter of bar We are free to at knowledge perception of her of the trial weight panel's tribute as much to the trial questions. court's recommendations as we see fit.32 Most re 1 29 Even if this conduct rises to the level cently, private reprimands have involved: violation, question becomes a rule what respond grievances, failure to failure to discipline appropriate?

form of is The Bar account for client funds and communicate comparison

Association relies on three cases: clients, selling property marital Stubblefield,

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. it, concealing pleading nolo contendere with (Attorney firearm,

1988 OK 766 P.2d 979 sus- pointing entering plea to child

pended days misrepresentation for 30 by injury. prior public abuse Cases of cen

adoption proceedings); and divorcee State ex categories sure have fallen into such as Johnston, inappropriate

rel. Okla. Bar. Ass'n v. 1998 OK sexual contact or sexual adv ances,33 cases, dismissals of client's or foil (Attorney suspended 863 P.2d 1186 Patterson, 27. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 35, ¶33, homa Bar Ass'n v. 2000 OK Taylor, 51, ¶29, 551; 2001 OK 28 P.3d State ex rel. P.3d 1242. Eakin, 106, ¶0, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 1995 OK 644; 914 P.2d State ex v. rel. Oklahoma Ass'n Rennie, 31. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. ¶ Bolton, see note infra at 16. 108, 120, 494; 1997 OK P.2d State ex rel. Butler, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 1992 OK 848 P.2d 540. Doris, 28. State ex rel. v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n 1015; 94, 138, 1999 OK State ex rel. Rozin, 132, 110, Bar Ass'n v. 1991 OK Rennie, 32. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar v. Ass'n see 824 P.2d 1127. note State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n supra; Wilkins, 59, ¶12, v. OK 147. Miskovsky, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n ¶ 1997 OK 938 P.2d 744. Corrales, 33. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 280 P.3d 968 entered [Respondent I, Southern, ex State rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Alford Plea on Count of misdemeanor As- Batter, allegations on sault based that he 88, ¶35, 1; P.3d ex rel. Okla- State mismanageme types of client's case other a client's behalf3 anything on

ing to do and looked down the client's blouse. unlawfully an assault touched willfully committed thing attorney also did the same girlfriend. battery upon He was sen pled mother.]. year He client's deferred sentence. to a one tenced III, II and which were *13 on Counts nolo contendre Respondent upon different women. two assault Bar Ass'n v. 34. State ex rel. Oklahoma Kelley, one-year deferred sentence to a 10, was sentenced [The 48 P.3d 777 first count of the 2002 OK in all three misde The sentences each case. attorney's complaint representation involved the resulting in a compensation were to run consecutively, meanors a client in a workers' case. of years,]; Oklahoma Bar State ex rel. total of three attorney complaint the was not The asserted that P.3d 107 Murdock, 32, 2010 OK 236 representation, attorney

Ass'n v. diligent the did in her Battery charged in viola of Sexual [Two counts keep reasonably client informed about the 1123(D). § Sexual One count of tion of 21 O.S. litigation expedite matter and foiled to the the attorney Battery and entered an was dismissed with the client's interests. The second consistent count, which re plea the other was Alford on attorney regarded against the the OBA's count Outraging of Public the misdemeanor duced to attorney respond griev- request a for the to to § 21 O.S. 22. He was in violation of against requests, her. After numerous ance filed Decency, year probation, 50 hours of one sentenced to subpoena attorney respond, the foiled to and a service, community victim restitution and coun deposition production her and of was issued for seling); v. Wil Oklahoma Bar Ass'n State ex rel. ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. documents.]; State 50, [The 142 P.3d 420 burn, 2006 OK attorney 59, 961 P.2d 208 Minter, 1998 OK [Respondent felony charged of sexual with two counts was represent son in a was hired to client's first- battery arising with female se from his contact degree The and murder case. son was convicted county curity guards courthouse. Eventual at a prison parole. life in sentenced to without The charges, pled guilty and ly, to misdemeanor he Respondent appeal filed a notice of intent to one-year suspended as to sentence he received a County. the District Court in Coal Howev- with er, designation Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. he foiled to also file a of record count.]; each State ex rel. required by record in the court as law. Because Groshon, 112, [The 2003 OK 82 P.3d 99 district hired the attor that the female client established Respondent proper papers foiled to file the to the Recognizing ney handle her divorce action. perfect appeal, accept to the OIDS did not the case. pay Respondent funds to him that attempted that she did not have the The client tocontact the services, agreed legal attorney by the telephone time for his numerous times both and letter payments Respondent whenever she was regarding appeal. her to make did not re- allow the However, attorney respond any did not bill any the of her able to do so. turn of calls making The admitted her for services. grievance filed, a was the Com- letters. After Respondent suggestive plainant's comments to the client and office sent three letters to numerous Respondent touching engaging inappropriate a sexual the course of several weeks. of over letters.]; any representation. respond the ex during did not of State the course of his nature episodes place in the that took At least one of the Prather, 87, 1996 OK rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. attorney by 28 failed to inform his lawyer's tape [The the client. office was recorded attempted her case had been dismissed on two to find new client that The client indicated she Also, fees.]; separate did not inform her occasions. he afford their counsel but was unable to Foster, The client unsue- that he had refiled her case. Bar Ass'n v. State ex rel. Oklahoma 4, attorney cessfully telephoned on several oc- [Attorney plea entered a OK 995 P.2d 1138 request reports charge status and information of assault with the casions nolo contendre to the attorney pertaining did not felony imposition to her case. The of a intent to commit a and phone he attorney most of her calls and did not five-year The unlaw- return deferred sentence. A.M., change after feloniously inform the client of his of address fully, wilfully, and touched a. (18) during eighteen years, the time he age of his four office moves under the minor child felony procuring intent to commit the with the ex rel. Oklahoma Bar her.]; State represented photographs in violation of obscene and indecent McManus, 1993 OK 852 P.2d 727 Ass'n v. 1021.2.]; agreed attorney parties commin- Supp.1996 § [The State ex rel. Okla- O.S. Garrett, gled personal funds with the trust account for OK homa Bar Ass'n v. attorney young funds. The foiled to communi- attorney sexually client's battered two [The client, grievance filed a by grabbing but- cate with a him, who their breasts and their women letter, requesting attorney and to answer the Bar's The tocks while he was intoxicated. attorney's respond grievance. battery to the The while that he arrested for felonious sexual was personal timely pursue guilty a trial for pled bat- foiled to to misdemeanor intoxicated respond Cope- attorney's injury The foiled to tery.]; case. ex. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n State rel. regarding grievance by filed letters the Bar's P.2d 776 land, 1994 OK [Respondent case.]; injury referring attorney State purposefully and related touched client's breast Angel, OK by Bar Ass'n v. performed for him ex Oklahoma favors had been rel. that sexual by client.]; attorney was retained [The 848 P.2d 549 State ex rel. Oklahoma another female alleging were in a federal action Sopher, 852 P.2d 707 clients Bar Ass'n v. 1993 OK office, change fraudulently accept in their attorney induced to attorney's [While in the Layton's apparently Bar Association would liken conduct to that of our

nt.35 The arrangement. attorney engaged commission providers claiming medical were interest received, summary discovery. proceeds A motion for settlement and not know- substantial ing judgment exactly filed defendants the action Texas law as to what their interest was days respond. exactly proceeds gave An the clients 35 was or how to distribute the law, granted attorney appropriately attorney until The under extension was dis- objection proceeds a reasonable to the unable to formulate bursed much to himself He then requested potentially a second extension. The embarked on a motion and course indefinite regard attorney response delay remaining proceeds, foiled to file a that second date, granted though the trial court defen- even he knew extension either one or more of the summary judgment.]; providers dant's motion for State ex or his client was entitled to the bulk of retained.]; the funds he State ex rel. Oklahoma Busch, rel. Bar Ass'n v. Erickson, appear [Respondent foiled to 832 P.2d 845 Bar Ass'n v. 29 P.3d 550 *14 subsequently [Attorney providing profes- client's case was dismissed. Re- violated rule that it is spondent prosecute arising imply ability was retained to suit sional misconduct to state or improperly government agency from an automobile collision and he filed the influence or offi- providing professional but never caused a summons to be issued. cial and rule it suit is attempt pro- The district court dismissed the case without misconduct to violate or to violate rules, prejudice knowingly because no summons had been issued. fessional conduct assist or so, notify respondent through The foiled to the client that his induce another to do or to do so acts another.]; stipulations case had been The dismissed. also State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. respondent state that the claims that he was Simank, 13, 2001 OK [The 19 P.3d 860 undisput- never notified of the dismissal and returned the respondent persistently ed facts were that failed prior client the respond case-file his dismissal The requesting to 10 letters from the bar respondent previously privately repri- had been sign information and also failed to for an addi- Responsibility manded the Professional Commis- tional 5 certified letter that were mailed to his violating mandatory response provi- sion for official bar address.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar sions of Rule 5.2 and the Bar included this Brewer, 101, Ass'n v. 1999 OK 998 P.2d 605 [Respondent keep Count to enhance State ex rel. Okla- reasonably failed to his clients discipline.]; cases, 164, homa Bar Ass'n v. 1992 OK 848 informed of the status of their failed to Donnelly, attorney P.2d 543 Med to [The initiate a collec- respond requests to their reasonable for informa- despite rep- tion action on his clients' behalf his tion, and failed to make reasonable efforts to resentations to the clients that he had in fact expedite litigation. The court also found the so.]; done State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar v. Ass'n supported finding respondent evidence Braswell, 63, [The 1983 OK 663 P.2d 1228 attor- complainant's request failed to answer for infor- ney foiled to file a tort claim on behalf of a client regarding grievances against mation filed period. within the limitations It was immaterial him.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bills, attorney assigned whether the the matter to 151, attorney 1997 OK 951 P.2d [The was simply misplaced a law clerk or had the case. representing proceeding a wife in a divorce and procedures monitoring His for unfiled cases accepted against a retainer which he could clearly inadequate.]. were charge fees his as were earned. The client discharged attorney requested the return Townsend,

35. State ex portion rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. of the unused of the retainer and accounting. attorney kept had not an ac- 44, 2012 OK [The missed attorney clients, resulting rulings court dates spent adverse to count of the hours he had on the file and communicate, diligence, failed to lacked and did had to recreate it from State ex rel. memory.]; manner.]; timely return files to clients in a Blackburn, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 35, 1991 OK [Iwo counts were filed State ex rel. Martin, Ass'n v. 66, 1) [Respondent's respond. OK 240 P.3d 690 utter failure Because of his substance-abuse supervise any non-attorney's problems, attorney neglected of a work activi- to file a brief on 2) enabling engage ties him to appeal unauthorized behalf of client his in criminal A wife practice by performing legal by of law telephone services with- contacted Blackburn and recruited proper supervision by lawyer. out a licensed him to handle her In conversation, divorce. Also, respondent vicariously liable in disci- she revealed a number of factors about her fi- nances, plinary responsibility requests alimony all support, the misdeeds of his for and child employee custody unlicensed which went unnoticed until considerations. Later Blackburn stating wrote to wife that he had been contacted the victim State ex rel. Oklahoma complained.]; Funk, filing Bar Ass'n v. 2005 OK 114 P.3d 427 her husband and was suit for divorce on evidently the husband's behalf Blackburn had allowed the client trust account [Respondent family fell below the held amount on behalf of the been a friend of the husband for a number attorney years.]; client. The court found that the had no State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. commingle intent to funds but he had misman- Borders, 1989 OK 777 P.2d 929 [Attorney aged the failed to communicate with criminal defendant's account.]; client State ex rel. Oklahoma public mother and with defender's office and Bar Ass'n v. 2003 OK 71 P.3d 18 Taylor, [Respondent knowing preserve property one or more of client's failed to of client to act ex rel. fashioned to coincide with prosecutorial discipline case of State im

recent Miller, posed upon lawyers other for similar Bar Ass'n v. acts of

Okla. professional misconduct.38 charged wherein Miller was

P.3d during a murder 5 counts of misconduct proceeding 34 This entire does not reflect days. suspended

trial and for 180 justice. well on the administration of No one discipline here is without fault:

1 32 If we were to fashion imposed upon discipline

to coincide with the 1) misunderstood lawyers professional acts of other similar precision; failed to tell the truth with misconduct, considering even while 2) judge presided over and allowed mitigating unique transgressions and factors sanctions, inappropriate without conduct cause, appears in this that the case should hostility Loftis. The admitted between dismissed, like ex rel. much State attorney Lofits and the assistant district Krug, Bar Ass'n v. Okla. employer sanctity and her tainted the 92 P.3d 67 and State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n Failure to courtroom. have a written (A Roberts, disciplinary pro- SCBD 5468 record of the bench and in camera confer- ceeding we dismissed wherein the problem. Tempers ences exacerbated the *15 duty pro- charged with the to inform a

was permitted were to flow where cold neutral- will). "possible" of a bate court of a existence standard; ity is the and Accordingly, disciplinary proceeding the bar dismissed, respondent

is is exonerated 3) disciplinary proceeding by the Bar charges, application and the to assess only allegations Association focused on the costs is denied. respondent completely ig- totality

nored the of the cirenmstances. CONCLUSION contest, an play- Were this athletic all of the ejected unsports- ers would have been for do not reach this conclu We respondent explained manlike conduct. The However, lightly. responsibility our is sion her mistake. the record Based on and the punish inquire gauge not to but to into and a thereof, inexplicable. lack are others law,

lawyer's practice continued fitness safeguarding presented,

with a view to the interest of 135 Under the facts the re- courts, public, legal spondent's of the and of the not violation of the rules does

profession. Discipline imposed discipline. Imposing discipline is to maintain warrant for goals punishment rather than as for such a violation would not

these serve lawyer's misconduct.36 Disciplinary purpose discipline ac of which is administered. Consequently, disciplinary proceed-

tion is also to deter the attor the bar administered ing respondent should be dismissed and the

ney from similar future conduct and to act as restraining might charges. exonerated of the vehicle on others who The Bar Associa- committing application

consider similar acts.37 It is tion's to assess costs is denied. interests.]; diligently represent State ex client's Bolton, 37. State ex rel. v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n 98, 112, 597; McNaughton, v. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n OK 904 P.2d State ex rel. attorney, [The OK 719 P.2d 1279 who had Donnelly, Oklahoma Bar Association v. 1992 OK accepted representation defendant of an adult 164, ¶11, 543; P.2d State ex rel. Oklahoma charged felony with the offense of lewd molesta- Hall, 117, ¶12, Bar Ass'n v. 1977 OK P.2d minor, served as counsel tion of also prose- matters, alleged underage for the cution related crime, sister, victim of the her minor and their Patterson, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n attorney argued that he had adult mother. The 51, ¶29, 551; 2001 OK 28 P.3d State ex rel. mother.]. made a full disclosure to the Eakin, 106, ¶0, OK Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 644; Smith, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v.

36. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. ¶ Bolton, see note 37 at 1014; State ex rel. supra. Lowe, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 640 P.2d 1361. PROCEEDINGS to believe that she was confused

BAR DISCIPLINARY by the trial

DISMISSED; EXONER- RESPONDENT question; intend court's that she did not

ATED; DE- FOR COSTS APPLICATION court; pro- mislead the and that her answer

NIED. and, therefore, duced no harm no foul. T5 The record reflects C.J., REIF, V.C.J., COLBERT, opportunities prof- had at two other least

KAUGER, WINCHESTER, (that fer the correct and truthful answer TAYLOR, COMBS, EDMONDSON, Miller) had, fact, talked to Mr. Once GURICH, JJ., concur. during testimony Mr. Miller's during meeting judge's also cham- J.,

WATT, dissents. presence bers with and in the Yet, opposing respondent contin- counsel WATT, J., dissenting. original perpetuate ued to lie to the Lay- majority attempts T1 to make The court. everyone's lack of candor the court ton's agree that no 16 I there was excuse respondent, except fault that of the the one opposing some of the actions of the counsel over only individual who had control Nevertheless, I this cause. cannot con Furthermore,

what came out of her mouth. majority's shifting any done the modicum of upon imposes the trial court unwarrant-

ed measure of blame. blame error onto the trial court bench. Oklahoma Court Criminal concerning charges T2 At all times Appeals made it has clear serious respondent, misconduct an assistant district cases, practice" criminal the "better is to attorney, only an officer of the court *16 proceedings, transcribe all both those in representative but was the and the face of Nevertheless, chambers and at the bench Sovereign prosecut- State of Oklahoma in failure to do is not "fundamen so considered ing According Layton's profile, this case. by especially tal error" the Criminal Court (8) eight position she served in this for some where, here, as the criminal defendants were that, years. It is difficult to believe as an Furthermore, acquitted.1 in cases on review experienced prosecuting attorney, the chaos tribunal, expected before that honorable it is day

in the courthouse the she encountered protect rights that defense counsel will of any her witness was much different than by objecting their clients to off-the-record proceeding contested eriminal which proceedings.2 objection prof was not participated. knowledge is common It cause, leaving fered this the trial court are, County that our Courthouses for the opportunity without the to rule on the same. part, completely inadequate pro- most opportunity "quiet vide little conversa- prosecutor, T7 As a former criminal de- often, anyone. attorneys with Most tions" lawyer, judge, fense and trial court it has are forced to conduct such interviews my continuing opinion been and is hallways and in hushed tones crowded filled unforgivable attorney/officer one sin of parties attorneys

with other their at- of the court is-"TO LIE TO THE tempting to do the same. COURT.". directly asked the trial When majority acknowledges T8 The '[the witness, spoken

if she had to her Antral clearly record is clear that was not Miller, prior she lied to the court in spoke candid to the court that she answering question-"NO."! testimony, Miller before his or what was Nevertheless, charges brought adopts

T4 In discussed.' the re- response to the

against respondent, spondent's sugarcoated she wants this court version of this trans- See, Oklahoma, See, Oklahoma, Childress v. 2000 OK v. State State Wackerly of 15, ¶8, CR 1 P.3d 1006. CR 12 P.3d 1. signs off majority opinion

gression and Ac- charges against her. dismissing the impose costs

cordingly, I would pe- impose lengthy further

respondent and upon the facts be- suspension based

riod respectfully I reason us and for

fore

dissent. CIV APP 46 ROULSTON, Plaintiff/Appeliee,

Courtney rel., Oklahoma, ex DEPART-

STATE SAFETY, De- MENT OF PUBLIC

fendant/Appellant. 112,006.

No. Oklahoma, Appeals of Civil

Court No. 3.

Division

Oct. Denied Dec.

Certiorari Ardmore, Oklahoma, Taylor,

A. DeAnn Hunsucker, City, E. Oklahoma and John Oklahoma, Plaintiff/Appellee. Counsel, Gray, General Mitchell Assistant Oklahoma, City, for Defen- dant/Appellant. MITCHELL, Judge.

BAY Oklahoma, rel., ex State of 41 Defendant (DPS) appeals Safety Department of Public Order, wherein 2013 Final from a June driver's license court set aside the the trial entered previously order revocation