In re the Reinstatement of Blake

2016 OK 33, 371 P.3d 465, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 34, 2016 WL 1117611
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 22, 2016
DocketSCBD No. 6237
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 2016 OK 33 (In re the Reinstatement of Blake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Reinstatement of Blake, 2016 OK 33, 371 P.3d 465, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 34, 2016 WL 1117611 (Okla. 2016).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

"[ 1 The petitioner, Glen Joseph Blake, filed a pe’mtlon requesting . reinstatement as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Blake voluntarily resigned from the OBA during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings,. Having found the petition supported by clear and convincing evidence, we issue an order granting reinstatement. We further sustain the OBA's application for assessment of costs in the amount of $22.40, and direct Petitioner Blake to pay the same within thirty (80) days of this opinion. .

Facts and Procedural History

1 2 Blake graduated from the University of Tulsa College of Law in May of 2000. He was admitted to the OBA on September 25, 2000. Prior to attending law school, Blake battled with drug and alcohol addiction. In the early 1990's, Blake was arrested on two occasions for alcohol-related offenses. In 1994, he sought professional help through a drug treatment-facility. Blake successfully maintained his sobriety until approximately 2003, when he began using prescription pain medication for an abscessed tooth. His use of pain medicine evolved into a full relapse. He transitioned from pain medicine to alcohol, and later progressed to methamphetamine use and addiction,

T 8 In June of 2007, Blake was arrested by the Tulsa County Sheriff during his attempted sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant, He was subsequently charged with one felony count of trafficking in illegal drugs in violation of 63 O.S. 2-415(B).1 On March 17, 2008, Blake entered a blind plea of guilty to the trafficking charge. Judge William Kellough sentenced him to a term six years imprisonment with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. ©

T4 On February 15, 2008, Blake submitted an affidavit of resignation pending disciplinary proceedings to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.2 We approved Blake's resignation by an order entered -on June 17, 2008, Although Blake failed to timely file the affidavit required by Rule 9.1 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. [468]*4682011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, he eventually filed the affidavit on April 30, 2015.

~ T5 Blake "was released from prison on parole in June 2010. Blake's criminal sentence required him to complete a number of community service hours. He began satisfying the community 'service obligation by working in the Tulsa County Public Defender's office. Initially, Blake performed primarily clerical tasks; however, he later worked as a paralegal, assisting with investigations and case preparation. After concluding his community service in December of 2010, Blake was offered a position with the Public Defender.3 Testimony presented to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal detailed Blake's duties with the Public Defender's office. His responsibilities included conducting client interviews at the jail, preparation of client files, and assisting attorneys with general clerical and investigative work, Blake also conducted legal research, drafted motions, and provided support to. attorneys during court proceedings.. All of this work was performed on behalf of and under the direct supervision of licensed attorneys. According to Blake, he always informed clients that he was not a licensed attorney. He emphatlcally demed offering legal advice or engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Tulsa County Public Défender, Rob Nigh, praised Blake's work-ethic and noted his in-tenti'on to offer him a job as an attorney, conditioned on reinstatement.

16 On February 12, 2015, Blake filed a petition seeking reinstatement as a member of the OBA. A hearing was held before the PRT, and the panel unanimously recommended Blake be reinstated. In accordance with RGDP Rules 114 and 11.5, the PRT issued a report on September 28, 2015 with the following findings: (1) Blake filed a petition seeking reinstatement with the‘OBA; (2) Blake complied with all procedural rules delineated in the RGDP for reinstatement inquiries; (8) Blake demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the requisite good moral character for readmission to the OBA; (4) Blake established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma; and (5) Blake completed 46.5 hours of MCLE in calendar years 2014 and 2015, However, the PRT Report did not address whether Blake possessed the requisite "competency and learning in the law" and whether he was exempt from retaking the bar examination, as required by RGDP Rule 11.5(c).4

T7 Following entry of the PRT Report, Blake filed his brief in support of reinstatement. The OBA waived its right to submit an answer brief in this cause, but acknowledged support for Blake's reinstatement.

w

Standard of Review

T8 Reinstatement matters are initially conducted before the PRT. The panel is obligated to provide this Court with a detailed summary of their factual and legal determinations. See RGDP Rules 11.8-11.5. A report from the PRT is required to include specific determinations regarding whether: 1) the petitioner possesses the good moral character which would entitle him to be admitted to the Bar Association; 2) the petitioner has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension; and 3) the petitioner possesses the competency and learning required for admission to the practice of law. In re Reinstatement of Pacenza, 2009 OK 9, ¶ 9, 204 P.3d 58, 62, Failure to establish any of these essen[469]*469tial prerequisites necessitates denial of reinstatement. Any recommendations of the PRT are merely advisory and the panel's conclusions are not binding. In re Reinstatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9, ¶ 6, 345 P.3d 1118, 1121. This Court conducts a review of PRT findings by "exercise[ing] independently its original jurisdiction and applying] a de novo standard of review." In re Reinstatement of Hird, 2008 OK 25, ¶ 3, 184 P.3d 535, 537. We are vested with a nondelegable, constitutional duty to regulate the practice of law. In re Reinstatement of Mumina, 2009 OK 76, ¶ 7, 225 P.3d 804, 808. Our primary objectives when weighing an attorney's request for reinstatement are protecting the public and maintaining confidence in the OBA. In re Reinstatement of Page, 2004 OK 49, ¶ 3, 94 P.3d 80, 82.

19 Additionally, RGDP Rule 11.4 provides "[aln applicant for reinstatement must establish affirmatively that, if readmitted or if the suspension from practice is removed, the applicant's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Bar." An attorney seeking reinstate, ment "bears the heavy burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that reinstate ment is warranted." In re Reinstatement of Page, ¶ 2, 94 P.3d at 81. Applicants must present stronger proof of meeting admission standards than an individual seeking to join the OBA for the first time. In re Reinstatement of Otis, 2007 OK 82, ¶ 7, 175 P.3d 357, 361, When evaluating a bid for readmission to the OBA, this Court weighs certain factors, including but not limited to: 1) the applicant's present moral fitness; 2) demonstrated consciousness of the conduct's wrongfulness and the disrepute it has brought upon the legal profession; 8) the extent of rehabilitation; 4) the original misconduct's seriousness; 5) conduct after resignation; 6) time elapsed since the resignation; 7) the applicant's character, maturity, and experience when suspended; and 8) present legal competence. In re Reinstatement of Pacenza, ¶ 9, 204 P.8d at 62.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF ARNETT
2022 OK 87 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MORGAN
503 P.3d 1186 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF HUTSON
2019 OK 32 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2019)
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MCLAUGHLIN
2018 OK 41 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2018)
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HASTINGS
2017 OK 43 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2017)
IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF WAGNON
2016 OK 66 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 OK 33, 371 P.3d 465, 2016 Okla. LEXIS 34, 2016 WL 1117611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-reinstatement-of-blake-okla-2016.