EDMONDSON, J.
« 1 Respondent received previous attorney discipline from the State Bar of Texas, and the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a reciprocal professional discipline proceeding in this Court. The Bar Association recommends that respondent be suspended fromthe practice of law for two years and one day. We impose a suspension for two years and one day, and impose costs in the amount of sixty-six dollars and fifty-two cents ($66.52).
- Texas State Bar Proceeding
1 2 In March of 2016, respondent personally appeared before an Evidentiary Panel of a Grievance Committee for the State Bar of Texas where three disciplinary cases against her were adjudicated. The Evidentiary Panel made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning respondent's, professional conduct in the three disciplinary cases. The Panel's judgment orders, adjudges and decrees "that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with the suspension being fully probated ..." pursuant to the terms specified in the judgment. The panel's judgment directed it "shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure." Nothing in the record before us suggests respondent lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the complaints before the Texas State Bar. -
3. In the first case, the panel found that respondent (1) neglected legal matters entrusted to her by failing to provide legal services, (2) failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of client's legal matters, and (8) failed to supervise a nonlaw-
yer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations,. In the second case, the panel found that respondent (1) received settlement funds and failed to promptly notify both her client and her client's medical providers who had interests in these funds, (2) failed to promptly deliver the settlement funds to her client and her client's medical providers, (8) faded to supervise a'nonlawyer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations, (4) shared legal fees with a nonlawyer in her office, and (5) owed restitution in the amount of one thousand five hundred sixty-six and 66/100 dollars to her client. In the third case, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter by failing to provide legal services, (2) failed to keep this client reasonably informed about the status of client's legal matters, (8) failed to comply with reasonable requests from the -client for information about the status of the client's legal matters, and (4) failed to supervise a nonlawyer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations.
{4 The panel's Conclusions of Law are respondent violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.01(b)(1), (competent and »diligent representation),
1.08(a), (communication),
1.14(b) (safekeeping property),
5.03(a) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
and
5.04(a)(Professional Independence of a Lawyer).
of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
15 The panel imposed upon respondent a probated suspension for two 'years. The terms of the probation are that she (1) not violate any term of the suspension, (2) not engage in professional misconduct in violation of Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Rule 1.06(W),
(3) not violate any state or federal criminal statutes, (4) keep the Texas State Bar advised on her current addresses and telephone numbers, (5) comply with Texas continuing legal education requirements, (6) comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA), (7) promptly respond to any request for information from the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office in connection with any 1nvest1gat10n of allega
tions of professional misconduct, (8) pay restitution to her client in the amount of $1,566.66, (9) pay reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses of the Texas State Bar in the amount of $1,962.50, and (10) make contact with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Offices' Compliance Monitor and Special Programs Coordinator, The panel's order stated the procedure for revoking her probation, she would not be given credit for any term of probation served prior to revocation, and any conduct which serve as grounds to revoke her probation could be brought as independent grounds for professional discipline. The order stated that any amount of money not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum legal rate per annum until paid and the State Bar of Texas "shall have all writs and other post-judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts."
Oklahoma Discipline
T6 This Court may impose lawyer discipline on a lawyer when that lawyer has received discipline from the highest court of another state or a federal court.
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.2011 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, provides for summary lawyer disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court in rule-specified circumstances. One of these circumstances is a lawyer's professional discipline imposed on the lawyer in another jurisdiction. Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (R.G.D.P.)
This rule also provides the Court will issue an order providing a respondent an opportunity to appear and show cause why he or she should not be disciplined by this Court.
T7 On April 28, 2016, this Court issued an order directing respondent "to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed, or to request a hearing, on or before May 19, 2016." Respondent did not
file a response to this Court's order or enter an appearance. Respondent did not request a hearing.
18 A lawyer accused of misconduct must be afforded due process, and given notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Complainant filed a notice of serving respondent a copy of the order of the Texas State Bar, This notice used respondent's roster address for the Oklahoma Bar Association. Complainant did not file any notice of serving respondent a copy of the Court's order directing respondent to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered.
19 The rules of this Court require the Clerk of this Court to mail orders and notices to parties, including respondents in a lawyer discipline proceeding who have failed to make an appearance.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
EDMONDSON, J.
« 1 Respondent received previous attorney discipline from the State Bar of Texas, and the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a reciprocal professional discipline proceeding in this Court. The Bar Association recommends that respondent be suspended fromthe practice of law for two years and one day. We impose a suspension for two years and one day, and impose costs in the amount of sixty-six dollars and fifty-two cents ($66.52).
- Texas State Bar Proceeding
1 2 In March of 2016, respondent personally appeared before an Evidentiary Panel of a Grievance Committee for the State Bar of Texas where three disciplinary cases against her were adjudicated. The Evidentiary Panel made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning respondent's, professional conduct in the three disciplinary cases. The Panel's judgment orders, adjudges and decrees "that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, with the suspension being fully probated ..." pursuant to the terms specified in the judgment. The panel's judgment directed it "shall be made a matter of record and appropriately published in accordance with the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure." Nothing in the record before us suggests respondent lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the complaints before the Texas State Bar. -
3. In the first case, the panel found that respondent (1) neglected legal matters entrusted to her by failing to provide legal services, (2) failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of client's legal matters, and (8) failed to supervise a nonlaw-
yer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations,. In the second case, the panel found that respondent (1) received settlement funds and failed to promptly notify both her client and her client's medical providers who had interests in these funds, (2) failed to promptly deliver the settlement funds to her client and her client's medical providers, (8) faded to supervise a'nonlawyer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations, (4) shared legal fees with a nonlawyer in her office, and (5) owed restitution in the amount of one thousand five hundred sixty-six and 66/100 dollars to her client. In the third case, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter by failing to provide legal services, (2) failed to keep this client reasonably informed about the status of client's legal matters, (8) failed to comply with reasonable requests from the -client for information about the status of the client's legal matters, and (4) failed to supervise a nonlawyer in her office in accordance with respondent's professional obligations.
{4 The panel's Conclusions of Law are respondent violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.01(b)(1), (competent and »diligent representation),
1.08(a), (communication),
1.14(b) (safekeeping property),
5.03(a) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants)
and
5.04(a)(Professional Independence of a Lawyer).
of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
15 The panel imposed upon respondent a probated suspension for two 'years. The terms of the probation are that she (1) not violate any term of the suspension, (2) not engage in professional misconduct in violation of Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Rule 1.06(W),
(3) not violate any state or federal criminal statutes, (4) keep the Texas State Bar advised on her current addresses and telephone numbers, (5) comply with Texas continuing legal education requirements, (6) comply with Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA), (7) promptly respond to any request for information from the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office in connection with any 1nvest1gat10n of allega
tions of professional misconduct, (8) pay restitution to her client in the amount of $1,566.66, (9) pay reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and direct expenses of the Texas State Bar in the amount of $1,962.50, and (10) make contact with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Offices' Compliance Monitor and Special Programs Coordinator, The panel's order stated the procedure for revoking her probation, she would not be given credit for any term of probation served prior to revocation, and any conduct which serve as grounds to revoke her probation could be brought as independent grounds for professional discipline. The order stated that any amount of money not paid shall accrue interest at the maximum legal rate per annum until paid and the State Bar of Texas "shall have all writs and other post-judgment remedies against Respondent in order to collect all unpaid amounts."
Oklahoma Discipline
T6 This Court may impose lawyer discipline on a lawyer when that lawyer has received discipline from the highest court of another state or a federal court.
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.2011 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, provides for summary lawyer disciplinary proceedings before the Supreme Court in rule-specified circumstances. One of these circumstances is a lawyer's professional discipline imposed on the lawyer in another jurisdiction. Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (R.G.D.P.)
This rule also provides the Court will issue an order providing a respondent an opportunity to appear and show cause why he or she should not be disciplined by this Court.
T7 On April 28, 2016, this Court issued an order directing respondent "to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed, or to request a hearing, on or before May 19, 2016." Respondent did not
file a response to this Court's order or enter an appearance. Respondent did not request a hearing.
18 A lawyer accused of misconduct must be afforded due process, and given notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Complainant filed a notice of serving respondent a copy of the order of the Texas State Bar, This notice used respondent's roster address for the Oklahoma Bar Association. Complainant did not file any notice of serving respondent a copy of the Court's order directing respondent to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered.
19 The rules of this Court require the Clerk of this Court to mail orders and notices to parties, including respondents in a lawyer discipline proceeding who have failed to make an appearance.
In a Rule 7.7 proceeding where a respondent has not made an appearance, this Court has used mail to the lawyer's Bar Association address as a method to provide notice of (1) an order directing the lawyer to respond why final discipline should not be entered, and (2) the order imposing final discipline.
This Court has held notice by mail to a lawyer's official roster address to be sufficient to satisfy due process.
A lawyer's failure to respond to the Bar's requests for information or the disciplinary complaint, or failure to appear at a disciplinary hearing does not prevent this Court from crafting an appropriate discipline.
A lawyer's failure to respond to this Court's order directing a Rule 7.7 response from the lawyer does not prevent this Court from entering an order of final discipline.
110 Documents including a certified copy of an adjudication of professional misconduct in another jurisdiction which is transmitted to this Court "shall constitute the charge and shall be prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described.
The documents provided to this Court by the complainant pursuant to Rule 7.17(), and showing a two-year probated suspension constitute the charge and are prima facie evidence that respondent committed the acts described therein. A respondent has the burden of showing that the findings forming the basis of the suspension in the other jurisdiction were not supported by the evidence or that the findings are not sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma.
Respondent did not meet her burden in this proceeding. The Texas judgment with its findings may be used in this proceeding as a basis to impose professional discipline.
$11 This Court's nondelegable and constitutional responsibility to regulate the practice of law and the licensure, ethics, and discipline of legal practitioners in this state is an exercise of this Court's original jurisdiction.
The responsibility of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is to inquire into and to gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a purpose of safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and
of the legal profession,
In reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, it is within the discretion.of this Court to impose the same discipline as that imposed in the other jurisdiction or one of greater or lesser-severity.
Discipline imposed by this Court should be consistent with that imposed by this Court for similar acts of misconduct.
{12 The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (O.RP.C.), Rule 1.15, requires safekeeping of a client's funds that are in a lawyer's possession in connection with the lawyer's representation, as well as requiring the lawyer to provide notice of such possession to the client and third parties who have interests in those fands.
A lawyer has a fiduc1a1y duty to properly manage funds entrusted to the lawyer’s care, and where a lawyer violates that duty, this Court engages three levels of culpability, (1) commingling, (2) simple conversion, and (8) misappropriation.
The record in this proceeding is suffi-clent to show respondent's commingling and conversion of funds belonging to a client and medical providers.
We have explained "This court has pronounced varying levels of discipline in matters involving mishandling of client funds. The disciplinary range has extended from censure to disbarment, depending in large part on the degree of harm to the client,
The disciplinary judgment directed respondent to make monthly installment payments for restitution to her client as conditions for her continued probation, There is no record before us concerning her repayment to her client.
1118 In a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding based upon a previous Texas State Bar proceeding, we imposed a one-year suspension for a lawyer's conduct which included neglect of legal matters and failing to keep a client informed, and we explained such conduct by the lawyer were also violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct
A
lawyer violates the O.R.P.C. when a failure to supervise a nonattorney employee enables the employee to engage in the unauthorized practice of law by performing legal services without proper supervision by a licensed lawyer.
See, eg., O.R.P.C., Rules 5.8,
5.5(a),
and 8. 4(3).
A lawyer's neglect of legal matters pertaining to his or her client is a violation of the lawyer's ethical duties. For example, we recently imposed a suspension for two years and one day because of a lawyer's five counts of neglect of cases, failing to keep - clients informed 'of the status of their cases, collecting and retaining fees for which little or no services were provided and failure to respond to the grievances.
14 After Respondent's disciplinary proceeding in Texas, she was suspended by this Court from the practice law for her failure to comply with the requirements of Oklahoma's Mandatory . Continuing Legal Education (M.C.LE.) for the year 2015.
Complainant also argues respondent violated R.G.D.P,, Rule 7.7(a) when she failed to notify the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association of the Texas disciplinary proceeding.
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: ©
(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer;
(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and
(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:;
(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct in-
volved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.
In summary, respondent committed an act of commingling and: conversion, neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to supervise an employee that resulted in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to notify the General Counsel of her disciplinary proceeding. Suspensions for one year as well as two years and one day have been imposed for conduct involving neglect of legal matters, commingling and conversion, and failure to comply with a rule of disciplinary procedure. The Bar Association recommends that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and one day, The appropriate discipline is a sug-pension for two years and one day.
Conclusion ,
116 The Bar Association filed an application to assess its costs against respondent in the amount of sixty-six dollars and fifty-two cents ($66.52). In a proceeding pursuant to R.G.D.P., Rule 7, we have imposed the costs of the proceeding on the lawyer receiving professional discipline.
The Bar's motion to
assess costs is granted. Costs shall be paid within ninety (90) days from the date this opinion is final.
T17 Respondent shall comply with R.G.D.P., Rule 9, including notification to her clients within twenty (20) days of her inability to represent them. She shall "also file a formal withdrawal as counsel in all cases pending in any tribunal," and file an affidavit with the Professional Responsibility Commission and the Clerk of the Supreme Court stating respondent's compliance with R.G.D.P., Rule 9.1, with a list of clients notified and other State and Federal courts notified as required by that rule.
"I 18 Respondent's license to practice law in Oklahoma is suspended for two years and one day from the date this opinion is final. Costs are granted against respondent in the amount of sixty-six dollars and fifty-two cents ($66.52).
19 CONCUR: COMBS, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COLBERT, and GURICH, JJ.
120 NOT PARTICIPATING: REIF, C.J.