In re the Reinstatement of Hird

2015 OK 70, 364 P.3d 628, 2015 Okla. LEXIS 104, 2015 WL 6473054
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 27, 2015
DocketSCBD No. 6176
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 OK 70 (In re the Reinstatement of Hird) 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 Hird, 2015 OK 70, 364 P.3d 628, 2015 Okla. LEXIS 104, 2015 WL 6473054 (Okla. 2015).

Opinion

OPINION

WATT, Justice:

{11 This is the third petition filed by the petitioner, Kenneth L. Hird, for reinstate ment of his membership to the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 0.8, 2011, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. He was previously denied reinstatement by this Court on March 20, 2001,1 and on March 25, 2008.2 His most recent petition was filed on September 28, 2014. Following a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) on December 19, 2014, the PRT filed its report in this Court on February 26, 2015, denying Hird's latest petition by a vote of 2-1. This proceeding followed. The OBA is in favor of Hird's reinstatement.

BACKGROUND

12 Whilé serving as a lending officer and manager for Caprock Savings and Loan in Dallas, Texas, Hird was involved in a fraudulent scheme which eventually led to the demise of the company. He personally financially benefitted from the fraud, which allowed him and his family to live a lavish lifestyle. The fraud was eventually discovered, and he was prosecuted by the federal government. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank fraud and money laundering and served prison time at the federal prison in El Paso, Texas.3

[630]*630STANDARD OF REVIEW . AND JURISDICTION

18 It is this Court's nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate the practice, ethics, licensure, and discipline of practitioners of the law. Matter of Reinstatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 16, 345 P.3d 1118, 1121, In bar reinstatement proceedings, this Court exercises its original and exclusive jurisdiction and applies a de novo standard of review. Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 16, 845 P.8d at 1121; Matter of Reinstatement of Pate, 2008 OK 24, €8, 184 P.3d 528, 580. The recommendations of the trial panel are merely advisory in nature. Id. We are not bound by its findings of fact, its view of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, or the weight to be given to the evidence. Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 11 6, 345 P.3d at 1121.

$4 Under the requirements of RGDP Rule 11.5, 5 0.8. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, the Trial Panel is required to make specific findings regarding whether. the petitioner for reinstatement: 1) possesses the good moral character which would entitle the lawyer to be admitted to the Bar; 2) has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension; and 8) possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, Additionally, the Court considers cight other factors in making a reinstatement decision: 1) applicant's present moral fitness; 2) demonstrated consciousness of the conduct's wrongfulness and the disrepute it has brought upon the legal profession; 3) the extent of rehabilitation; 4) the original misconduct's seriousness; 5) conduct after resignation; 6) time elapsed since the resignation; 7) applicant's character, maturity and experience at the time of resignation; and 8) present legal competence. Ma ter of Reinstatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 1 8, 345 P.8d 1118, 1122; In re Reinstatement of Massey, 2006 OK 21, % 12, 186 P.3d 610, 614.

REPORT OF - THE TRIAL PANEL

{6 The Report of the Trial Panel contained the findings that Hird did not establish by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) that he has competency and Iearmng in the law; ©
(2) that he presented stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time; and
(8) that he possesses good moral character sufficient to entitle him to be reinstated.4

16 In its summary, the Tribunal states that Hird relies on much of the same evidence to establish competency and learning of the law which was considered by the Court in Hird II, in which his request for reinstatement was denied. At that time, this Court found he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he possessed the requisite competency and learning for admission to the Bar, The Panel finds that he again relies on his work as a paralegal, his human resources work, and his experience as an oil and gas landman. However, the Panel did note that in this reinstatement proceeding, Petitioner presented evidence of completing three online Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses, two in 2018 and one in 2014. The Panel also made the statement that "[slincee the prior denial of reinstatement in 2008, no additional evidence of attempts to maintain legal competency was presented until the completion of the CLE in 2014." Because of the great lapse of time since his resignation, over 20 years, the Panel concelud-ed he had failed to show he had kept himself informed as to "current developments in the law sufficient to maintain his competency," citing Rule 11.5, RGDP. |

[631]*63117 The PRT's report in the current proceeding gives emphasis to the fact that Hird's bank fraud and money laundering involved tens of millions of dollars and was committed while acting as general counsel of the savings and loan. It also noted that his criminal conduct created financial harm to many individuals, Despite noting compelling evidence that he has been rehabilitated "to a significant degree" and that he is a productive member of society, however, the PRT stated in its Report recommendmg denial of reinstatement:

Neither the lapse of ‘time nor the commendable conduct over time is sufficient to overcome the serious nature of Petitioner's crimes. Matter of Reinstatement of Page, 2004 OK. 49, ¶ 19, 94 P.3d 80, 86.5

18 The PRT contrasts this case with Matter of Reinstatement of Mumina, 2009 OK 76, 225 P.3d 804, cited by the OBA, in which reinstatement was granted, Although the PRT notes the similarities, ie., commission of felonies involving money and federal prison time, it appears to place more emphasis on the fact that restitution was made by Mumi-na, but not by Hird. It should be noted, however, that the charges of misappropriation and embezzlement were dismissed as part of a plea negotiation after Mumina paid restitution to a bankruptey estate. Mumina 225 P.3d at 808, 15. He was further ordered to pay restitution of $85,425.78, which he did. Id. Hird's sentence was modified, upon motion of the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663(d), because of Hird's substantial assistance in the case.6 He was, therefore, not ordered to pay restitution This Court should not be understood 'to hold that the commission of any crime by a lawyer should be treated as anything other than a serious matter, However, we are called upon in this case to determine whether the seriousness of Hird's original misconduct should continue to remain an obstacle to his current quest for reinstatement.

19 The commission of a felony is not an insurmountable barrier to reinstatement. Matter of Reinstatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 19, 845 P.3d 1118, 1125-1126. Additionally, each application must be considered on its own merits and will fail or succeed on the evidence presented. Id. The more severe the offense, the heavier the burden to overcome. , Id. We decline to hold that his original misconduct should prevent his reinstatement. .

COMPETENCE AND LEARNING IN THE LAW

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

Related

In Re the Reinstatement of Mumina
2009 OK 76 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2009)
In Re the Reinstatement of Page
2004 OK 49 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2004)
In Re the Reinstatement of Hird
2001 OK 28 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2001)
In Re the Reinstatement of Massey
2006 OK 21 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2006)
In Re the Reinstatement of Hird
2008 OK 25 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2008)
In Re the Reinstatement of Pate
2008 OK 24 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2008)
In re Reinstatement of Kerr
2015 OK 9 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 OK 70, 364 P.3d 628, 2015 Okla. LEXIS 104, 2015 WL 6473054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-reinstatement-of-hird-okla-2015.