KAUGER, Vice Chief Justice:
The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent, Darril L. Holden (Holden/attomey), with three counts of misconduct. All three counts related to the attorney’s unauthorized practice of law while under a disciplinary suspension1 and to his dishonesty in responding to grievance inquiries. The attorney admitted Ms misconduct. We find that tMs conduct — involving, in part, a blatant disregard of tMs Court’s prior order of suspension — warrants a two year and one day suspension and the payment of costs in the amount of $235.43.2
[34] AGREED FACTS
In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Holden, 895 P.2d 707, 713 (Okla.1995) (Holden I), promulgated on March 21, 1995, Holden was given a one year suspension for advising a client to remove his child from Oklahoma in violation of a court order. In February of this year, the Bar Association filed an objection to reinstatement of the attorney based in part upon his failure to pay costs of the prior disciplinary proceeding. The objection also indicated that Holden may have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while on suspension. On March 11,1996, Holden was ordered to show cause why his suspension should not be extended pending payment of the ordered costs. The attorney filed a response containing exhibits establishing that the required costs were paid. On April 9, 1996, we issued an order dismissing the Bar Association’s objection to reinstatement or request for continued suspension based upon the failure to pay costs as moot.3 The dismissal order advised the Bar Association and Holden that a separate disciplinary complaint could be filed alleging that the attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension or that he committed other actions which would subject him to discipline.4
On May 3, 1996, the Bar Association, the attorney and the trial panel filed their proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendation of discipline (agreed findings). The agreed findings outline three cases in which Holden accepted representation of clients while he was under suspension for unprofessional conduct.5 This Court’s order of suspension in Holden I was promulgated on March 21, 1995. As early as the first week of April, 1995, Holden agreed to [35] represent Fran Lisenberry in a dispute involving back taxes and a delinquent mortgage. On June 5,1995, Richard and Beverly Grinrod hired him to represent them in a personal bankruptcy action. Beginning on June 21 and continuing through July 6,1995, Holden gave legal advice to Gail Lewis and Diane Johnson involving a juvenile matter and a specialized school placement. The clients in all three matters first learned of Holden’s suspended status when they complained about his performance to the Bar Association. When the Bar Association contacted Holden concerning each of the three complaints, he initially responded that: 1) he had disclosed his suspended status to the respective clients; 2) the clients had actually hired his son, an attorney of the same name, to represent them; and 3) he had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension. Each of these responses were admitted misrepresentations.
The Bar Association, the attorney and the trial panel have recommended a one year suspension. The Bar Association has also requested that costs be assessed.6
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW WHILE UNDER A DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION COUPLED WITH MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE IN RESPONSE TO A GRIEVANCE INQUIRY WARRANT A TWO YEAR AND ONE DAY SUSPENSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS
Before this Court may impose discipline upon an attorney, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence.7 The record is sufficient to support the charges of the unauthorized practice of law and of misrepresentations made to the Bar Association in response to its grievance inquires.8
[36] In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction.9 We are not bound by agreed findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline.10 Rather, the ultimate responsibility for imposition of professional discipline is ours alone.11 Our review is de novo in considering the record presented as well as the recommendations for discipline.12
This is the third time that this Court has been called upon to consider the attorney’s conduct in a disciplinary context. In the first two instances, Holden was treated with leniency. Despite the severity of the charge,13 we reduced the recommended discipline in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Holden, 895 P.2d 707, 713 (Okla.1995) (Holden I) from eighteen months to one year in consideration of testimony presented concerning the attorney’s honesty and good character. Holden I was promulgated on March 21, 1995. It required that the attorney pay costs within thirty days of the date of the opinion as a precondition to reinstatement. The ordered costs were not paid until March 19, 1996 — almost a year after they were due and only after we issued a show cause order. Nevertheless, our order of April 9, 1996,14 dismissed as moot the Bar Association’s request for Holden’s continued suspension based upon his failure to pay costs as ordered in Holden I.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KAUGER, Vice Chief Justice:
The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent, Darril L. Holden (Holden/attomey), with three counts of misconduct. All three counts related to the attorney’s unauthorized practice of law while under a disciplinary suspension1 and to his dishonesty in responding to grievance inquiries. The attorney admitted Ms misconduct. We find that tMs conduct — involving, in part, a blatant disregard of tMs Court’s prior order of suspension — warrants a two year and one day suspension and the payment of costs in the amount of $235.43.2
[34] AGREED FACTS
In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Holden, 895 P.2d 707, 713 (Okla.1995) (Holden I), promulgated on March 21, 1995, Holden was given a one year suspension for advising a client to remove his child from Oklahoma in violation of a court order. In February of this year, the Bar Association filed an objection to reinstatement of the attorney based in part upon his failure to pay costs of the prior disciplinary proceeding. The objection also indicated that Holden may have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while on suspension. On March 11,1996, Holden was ordered to show cause why his suspension should not be extended pending payment of the ordered costs. The attorney filed a response containing exhibits establishing that the required costs were paid. On April 9, 1996, we issued an order dismissing the Bar Association’s objection to reinstatement or request for continued suspension based upon the failure to pay costs as moot.3 The dismissal order advised the Bar Association and Holden that a separate disciplinary complaint could be filed alleging that the attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension or that he committed other actions which would subject him to discipline.4
On May 3, 1996, the Bar Association, the attorney and the trial panel filed their proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law, and recommendation of discipline (agreed findings). The agreed findings outline three cases in which Holden accepted representation of clients while he was under suspension for unprofessional conduct.5 This Court’s order of suspension in Holden I was promulgated on March 21, 1995. As early as the first week of April, 1995, Holden agreed to [35] represent Fran Lisenberry in a dispute involving back taxes and a delinquent mortgage. On June 5,1995, Richard and Beverly Grinrod hired him to represent them in a personal bankruptcy action. Beginning on June 21 and continuing through July 6,1995, Holden gave legal advice to Gail Lewis and Diane Johnson involving a juvenile matter and a specialized school placement. The clients in all three matters first learned of Holden’s suspended status when they complained about his performance to the Bar Association. When the Bar Association contacted Holden concerning each of the three complaints, he initially responded that: 1) he had disclosed his suspended status to the respective clients; 2) the clients had actually hired his son, an attorney of the same name, to represent them; and 3) he had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension. Each of these responses were admitted misrepresentations.
The Bar Association, the attorney and the trial panel have recommended a one year suspension. The Bar Association has also requested that costs be assessed.6
THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW WHILE UNDER A DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION COUPLED WITH MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE IN RESPONSE TO A GRIEVANCE INQUIRY WARRANT A TWO YEAR AND ONE DAY SUSPENSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS
Before this Court may impose discipline upon an attorney, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence.7 The record is sufficient to support the charges of the unauthorized practice of law and of misrepresentations made to the Bar Association in response to its grievance inquires.8
[36] In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction.9 We are not bound by agreed findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline.10 Rather, the ultimate responsibility for imposition of professional discipline is ours alone.11 Our review is de novo in considering the record presented as well as the recommendations for discipline.12
This is the third time that this Court has been called upon to consider the attorney’s conduct in a disciplinary context. In the first two instances, Holden was treated with leniency. Despite the severity of the charge,13 we reduced the recommended discipline in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Holden, 895 P.2d 707, 713 (Okla.1995) (Holden I) from eighteen months to one year in consideration of testimony presented concerning the attorney’s honesty and good character. Holden I was promulgated on March 21, 1995. It required that the attorney pay costs within thirty days of the date of the opinion as a precondition to reinstatement. The ordered costs were not paid until March 19, 1996 — almost a year after they were due and only after we issued a show cause order. Nevertheless, our order of April 9, 1996,14 dismissed as moot the Bar Association’s request for Holden’s continued suspension based upon his failure to pay costs as ordered in Holden I.
Discipline is administered to preserve public confidence in the bar.15 Our responsibility in a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish but to inquire into and to gauge a lawyer’s continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession.16 . Discipline is imposed to maintain these goals rather than as punishment for the lawyer’s misconduct.17 Disciplinary action is also administered to deter the attorney from similar future conduct and to act as a restraining vehicle on others who might consider committing similar acts.18 This Court cannot, and will not, tolerate utter disregard for our orders of suspension.19 To [37] do so would require us to ignore our paramount duty of preserving public confidence in the entire bar.20
The parties and the trial panel stipulated to a one year suspension as sufficient discipline for Holden’s actions. We disagree. Here, the attorney disregarded our order of suspension almost from the time it issued, and he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore, he misrepresented his actions in his response to the grievance inquiries of the Bar Association — an action which, in itself, may subject an attorney to discipline.21 If we were to agree to anything less than a two year and one day suspension, Holden’s readmission to the practice of law could be made without an order of this Court.22 When the attorney was given the opportunity for readmission to the practice of law without order of this Court and with only the requirement that he file with the Clerk of the Supreme Court an affidavit affirming that he had not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or violated any other disciplinary rule or the disciplinary order of this Court entered in Holden I, he abused it by ignoring the discipline administered and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. We find that he must meet a more strict standard before being allowed to represent the public in the future. Therefore, Holden is suspended from the practice of law for two years and a day.
A suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years and one day is tantamount to disbarment in that the suspended lawyer must follow the same procedures for readmittance as would a disbarred counterpart.23 Before an attorney who has been disciplined for more than two years may be readmitted to the practice of law, it must be established that his/her conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Oklahoma Bar. The applicant must present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking first time admission.24
The Bar Association submitted an application to assess costs of $235.43 on June 25, 1996. The costs are itemized and copies of the bills associated with the proceeding are [38] attached to the Bar Association’s application. Holden has not filed a response to the application. He is responsible for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.25
CONCLUSION
The nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate both the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of the practitioners of the law is solely vested in this Court.26 Upon a de novo review of the record, we find that Holden engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while under a disciplinary order of suspension issued by this Court. He also misrepresented his actions to the Bar Association in response to its grievance inquiry.
We are deeply concerned at the repeated appearance of this attorney before this Court on disciplinary matters. Holden’s initial advice to a client to remove his child from Oklahoma in violation of a court order,27 followed by his failure to pay promptly costs of the disciplinary proceeding and his unauthorized practice of law while under suspension demonstrate an indifference to his obligations as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association28 The conduct warrants a two year and one day suspension and the payment of costs in the amount of $235.43. Costs are to be paid within thirty days of the date of this opinion.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED; COSTS IMPOSED.
HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur.
ALMA WILSON, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.