STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT

2016 OK 31
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 9, 2016
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 OK 31 (STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT) 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
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT, 2016 OK 31 (Okla. 2016).

Opinion

OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT
2016 OK 31
Case Number: SCBD-6359
Decided: 03/09/2016
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA


Cite as: 2016 OK 31, __ P.3d __

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. 


State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant
v.
Fred Bennett Callicoat Respondent.

ORDER APPROVING RESIGNATION FROM OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND WAIVING COSTS

Upon consideration of Complainant Oklahoma Bar Association's (Bar Association) application for an order approving the Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings executed by Respondent, Fred Bennett Callicoat, the application reveals:

(1) Respondent, Fred Bennett Calicoat, OBA #18519, was admitted to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association on January 10, 2000. His official OBA roster address is 10203 S. Oswego Place, Tulsa, OK 74103. On February 25, 2015, Respondent executed a Diversion Program Agreement. On January 30, 2016, he submitted his affidavit regarding resignation from membership in the Bar Association pending investigation of disciplinary proceedings.

(2) Respondent's affidavit of resignation reflects that he desires to resign and: a) it is freely and voluntarily rendered; b) he is not subject to coercion or duress; c) he is fully aware of the consequences of submitting the resignation; and d) he is aware the resignation is subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. He also intends the effective date of the resignation to be the date and time of its execution and will conduct his affairs accordingly.

(3) Respondent's affidavit states he is aware the Oklahoma Bar Association has investigated specific allegations of professional misconduct to wit:

Complaint 1 - Brians' Grievance

Kayce R. Brians alleges neglect of the client's adversarial bankruptcy proceeding and a failure to earn the $1,500.00 fee paid to Respondent. Following investigation of this grievance, Respondent executed a Diversion Program Agreement.

(4) While enrolled in the Diversion Program, complaints 2-15 were received by the Office of the General Counsel for the Oklahoma Bar Association and were under investigation.

Complaint 2 - Lewis' Grievance

Brenda Lewis alleges that Respondent neglected her bankruptcy case and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 3 - Johnson's Grievance

Rochelle Johnson alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned her bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $1,500.00 fee, and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 4 - Bennett's Grievance

Michael Bennett alleges that Respondent failed to prepare a contract for the sale of Bennett's land, failed to earn his retainer, and failed to communicate with him. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 5 - Thornton's Grievance

Byrder Maye Thornton alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned her bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $1,300.00 fee, and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 6 - Goins' Grievance

Sean Goins alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned his bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $1,500.00 fee, and failed to communicate with him regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 7 - Haddox's Grievance

Andrea Haddox alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned her bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $1,500.00 fee, and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 8 - Brown's Grievance

John Brown alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned his civil matter, despite receiving a $1,200.00 fee, and failed to communicate with him regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 9 - Cooper's Grievance

Paul Cooper alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned his bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $1,800.00 fee, and failed to communicate with him regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information. The investigator and the process server could not locate Respondent until December 1, 2015.

Complaint 10 - Capers' Grievance

Shaeina Capers alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned her bankruptcy case, despite receiving a $635.00 fee, and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information.

Complaint 11 - Barrett's Grievance

Jeanie Barrett alleges that Respondent neglected and abandoned her small claims case, despite receiving a $800.00 fee, and failed to communicate with her regularly. During the Bar Association's investigation of this matter, Respondent failed to respond to its requests for information.

Complaint 12 - Tran's Grievance

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

Related

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALLICOAT
2016 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 OK 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-oklahoma-bar-association-v-callicoat-okla-2016.