STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZANNOTTI
2014 OK 25
326 P.3d 496
Case Number: SCBD-6019
Decided: 04/08/2014
As Corrected: June 17, 2014
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Cite as: 2014 OK 25, 326 P.3d 496
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION,
Complainant,
v.
MARK ANDREW ZANNOTTI, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint against Respondent alleging
violations of Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC),
5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 3-A, and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary
Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A. The basis of the complaint was
respondent's nolo contendere plea to domestic assault and malicious
injury to property and a protective order entered against him. The parties
stipulated to the facts and agreed to a recommended discipline of public censure
and probation. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found that Respondent
had violated the ORPC and RGDP as alleged and recommended a public censure and
probation until January 20, 2015.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED;
MOTION TO ASSESS COSTS
DENIED.
Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar
Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.
Charles F. Alden,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.
¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed a complaint against attorney Mark
Andrew Zannotti (Respondent). The OBA alleges Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b)1 of the Oklahoma
Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 3-A, and Rule
1.32 of the
Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A,
and that he should be disciplined. The parties entered into stipulations of
facts, including that Respondent pled nolo contendere to charges of
domestic violence and destruction of another's property and is under a
protective order, and recommended a public reprimand with a period of probation.
The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) held a hearing and filed a report
finding that Respondent had violated the ORPC and RGDP and recommending that
Respondent should be disciplined by public reprimand with probation.
¶2 The first issue before this Court is whether Respondent violated the
ORPC's and the RGDP's rules governing attorneys' conduct. If so, the second
issue is what discipline should be imposed on Respondent. We find that
Respondent has violated the ORPC's and the RGDP's rules governing attorney
conduct. We determine the proper discipline to be suspension from the practice
of law for two years if Respondent successfully completes the requirements of
the order deferring the sentence and judgment, subject to reconsideration if the
judgment and sentencing are accelerated.
I. REVIEW OF PRT PROCEEDING AND RECORD
¶3 This Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over bar disciplinary
matters. Rule 1.1, RGDP. This Court's review of the proceeding before the PRT is
de novo. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 1992 OK 164, ¶ 11, 848 P.2d 543, 545. In our de
novo review, we examine the record and assess the weight and credibility of
the evidence. Id. This Court is not bound by the parties' admissions, the
parties' stipulations, or the PRT's findings of facts and misconduct or
recommendations of discipline. Id.
¶4 The record includes the parties' stipulations, a transcript of the PRT
hearing, and documentary evidence. Factual stipulations that are consistent with
the record are adopted by this Court; to the extent the stipulations are
inconsistent with the record, they are rejected. See State ex rel. Oklahoma
Bar Ass'n v. Chapman, 2005 OK
16, ¶¶ 11-12, 114 P.3d 414,
416. Here, the stipulated facts present an incomplete account of the facts and
of Respondent's misconduct.
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
¶5 On November 9, 2009, J.D. retained Respondent as her attorney in her
divorce proceeding. On October 3, 2010, J.D. and Respondent began a sexual
dating relationship although both were married and Respondent was still
representing J.D. On November 3, 2010, Respondent filed an application to
withdraw as J.D.'s attorney; the application was granted on November 4, 2010.
The couple dated off and on until September 4, 2011.
¶6 The following undisputed testimony was presented at the trial in State
v. Zannotti, No. CM-2012-3988 (D.Ct. Tulsa County Jan. 28, 2013). On or
before October 26, 2011, while J.D. was away on a business trip and then on her
way home, Respondent sent J.D. text messages which show that Respondent was in a
needy, jealous state of mind; and J.D. responded to several, but not all, of the
text messages.3 J.D. and Respondent agreed to meet at her house
because Respondent was "wanting to get back together." Respondent let himself
into J.D.'s house through an unlocked back door as she had instructed him. When
J.D. arrived home and to her surprise, her garage door was open with
Respondent's car parked inside. Even though they were not dating at the time,
Respondent opened J.D.'s car door and kissed her. Then Respondent reached inside
the car, grabbed her phone, smashed it in the driveway, and said, "You don't
need this. You just need to pay attention to me."
¶7 J.D. and Respondent went into the kitchen where an argument began. When
Respondent went into the backyard, J.D. got in her car and attempted to leave.
Respondent came into the garage, pulled the keys out of the car, and pulled J.D.
out of the car and into the kitchen. After J.D. saw Respondent's phone on the
counter, she encouraged Respondent to smash his phone like he had smashed her
phone. When Respondent went outside with his phone, J.D. grabbed a cordless
phone and ran upstairs to the bathroom.
¶8 Respondent came up the stairs and into the bathroom, pulled J.D. into the
bedroom, and pushed her onto the bed. J.D. started screaming for Respondent to
leave which upset him even more. Respondent then lifted J.D. up by her
shoulders, threw her into the bedroom wall and head-butted her in the face,
causing a gash across her nose and giving her two black eyes.
¶9 J.D. convinced Respondent to let her go downstairs to get some ice for her
nose, and Respondent followed her into the kitchen. Respondent pushed J.D. back
upstairs where he ordered her to undress and where he undressed.4 Respondent ordered J.D. to
lie down on the bed, got atop her, and put his hands around her neck tightly
several times. During this time, Respondent asked her if she loved him and would
marry him. In an attempt to pacify Respondent, J.D. replied, "Yes." Respondent
also asked J.D. for the last name of her male friend and said that he was going
to kill him. Finally, Respondent began to calm down, and J.D. was able to kick
him off the bed. Respondent stood up and asked J.D. if she wanted him to leave.
She grabbed her dress, put it back on, and answered, "yeah." While Respondent
was dressing, J.D. ran down the stairs, ran out the front door to a neighbor's
house, and called 911.
¶10 After the police arrived and questioned J.D., she went to a friend's
house to stay. J.D. was out of town the next few days. When she returned home,
J.D. filed for a protective order. The district attorney filed charges against
Respondent for misdemeanor domestic abuse assault and battery,5 and malicious injury to
property.6
¶11 On August 8, 2012, a criminal information was filed. Respondent was
charged in Count I of the Information as follows:
MARK ANDREW ZANNOTTI, on or about 10/26/2011, in Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did
commit the crime of DOMESTIC ASSAULT & BATTERY, a Misdemeanor, by
unlawfully, willfully and wrongfully, commit an assault and battery upon the
person of one [J.D.], a person with whom the defendant was in a dating
relationship, by then and there pushing and shoving her and striking her
about the face with force and violence and with the unlawful intent to do
her corporal hurt and bodily injury . . . .
Count II charged that Respondent "unlawfully, willfully, maliciously and
wrongfully" injured and defaced J.D.'s phone by "taking the phone and breaking
it with the deliberate and malicious and wrongful intent to injure property of
said owner."7
Respondent pled nolo contendere to the criminal charges.
¶12 J.D. testified in the criminal proceeding that, since the incident, she
had not stayed alone at night in her house, was seeing a counselor, was taking
medication to calm her, and was frightened of running into Respondent.8 She testified
that he had never before exhibited violent behavior, and she would not have
expected such behavior from him. The judge deferred the sentencing for two
years, stating: "When the prosecutor is recommending situations where they want
probation in the amount -- in the amount of one year, I get exactly the same
punishment by extending it and -- not punishment, but safety of the -- of the
community and punishment, by extending it. And the only way I can do that is
with a deferred sentence."9
¶13 At the hearing before the PRT, OBA counsel asked Respondent the following
question:
And her proffer to the Court regarding the factual basis for the plea was
that the State's evidence would show that on October 26, 2011, that the
Defendant, while at the home of the victim, [J.D.] - - I'm going to skip
through the address - - that he grabbed her arm, pushed her, head-butted her
in the face and threw her down, and that the Court added, and allegedly
grabbed her phone earlier, threw it in the driveway, breaking it and having
it skid into the yard. Is that also true? And then the Court asked you, "Is
that the evidence you're telling me that I should accept as true although
you're not admitting to any part of it?"
Respondent answered: "Yes." Then OBA counsel asked: "And was that, in fact,
what you entered the plea to?" Respondent again answered: "Yes." Respondent
stated that he had put his hands on J.D. inappropriately but that he had not
done everything she said he did without elaborating.10
¶14 Respondent testified that J.D. convinced him that "maybe it would work."
He further testified that "she wanted me to come over on the 26th after I picked
her up from the airport a couple of weeks before. . . ." The text messages do
not support Respondent's testimony that it was J.D. who wanted to continue the
relationship. The text messages, see Appendix A, show that Respondent was
the one insisting on he and J.D. meeting on October 26.
¶15 Respondent has paid for the cell phone, started counseling even before
the criminal charges were filed, and has cooperated with the OBA in its
investigation. He states that he is embarrassed by his behavior, understands how
he has hurt people, understands that he has brought disrepute upon the legal
profession, and is sure he will never act in the same way again.
¶16 The parties stipulated to the following mitigation: Respondent has
practiced for nineteen years without discipline by this Court, he has cooperated
with the OBA's investigation, he has complied with the terms of the deferment
order, his conduct was not related to his practice of law, and he has made full
restitution. The witnesses that testified in his behalf, including his
counselor, think he is fit to practice law and would not have anticipated
Respondent's behavior on October 26, 2011.11
III. VIOLATIONS OF THE ORPC AND THE RGDP
¶17 The OBA alleges and the Respondent admits that he violated Rule 8.4(b) of
the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP. A lawyer's violent acts in the form of
domestic abuse demonstrate a lawyer's unfitness to practice law. See Rule
8.4, cmt. 2, ORPC. The facts underlying the conviction are the facts in the
disciplinary proceeding. Rule 7.2, RGDP. Respondent's acts show a disregard for
the laws that he has sworn to uphold and for the rules governing lawyers'
conduct. The characterization of Respondent's conduct as criminal, civil, or
neither matters not. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 1994 OK 12, ¶ 8, 870 P.2d 770, 774. "The misconduct
clearly does not comport with accepted professional standards because it is
likely to undermine public confidence in and perception of the legal profession
as a community of law-abiding practitioners." Id.
¶18 The evidence shows that Respondent violated Rule 1.8(j) of the ORPC, as
well as Rule 8.4(b) of the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP. Rule 1.8(j) prohibits
a lawyer from beginning a sexual relationship with a client. Even though
Respondent withdrew his representation of J.D. in her divorce proceeding shortly
after beginning a sexual relationship with her, he nonetheless violated Rule
1.8(j). However, the OBA did not allege facts in the complaint in support of a
violation of Rule 1.8(j). Due process considerations limit this Court's exercise
of power to discipline Respondent for a violation of Rule 1.8(j). If this were
the only rule the Respondent had violated, we would be compelled to dismiss the
complaint. But it is not. And while we cannot consider Respondent's violation of
Rule 1.8(j) in determining whether Respondent violated the ORPC, we may consider
this violation, as we consider other factors presented by the evidence, in
determining the appropriate discipline.
IV. DISCIPLINE
¶19 The evidence does not support the parties' stipulations to the mitigation
that Respondent's misconduct did not relate to his practice of law and that he
has made full restitution. First, Respondent was in a position of trust when he
started the sexual relationship with J.D. that led to his acts of domestic
violence. Certainly taking advantage of a client going through a divorce and
heaping violence upon that now former client relates to his practice of law.
Second, there is no evidence that Respondent paid for J.D.'s medical and
counseling expenses resulting from the physical and psychological injuries as a
result of the domestic violence inflicted upon her. Further, Respondent can do
nothing to rectify the psychological damage he inflicted on J.D. Respondent's
testimony regarding the events of October 26, 2011, to portray J.D. as the needy
party in the relationship and himself in a more favorable light, shows that
Respondent has not accepted responsibility for his actions and undermines the
testimony of his remorse.
¶20 Next we turn to the issue of the manner in which this bar matter came to
this Court. But for the district court clerk's failure to comply with Rule 7.2
of the RGDP by filing the order deferring sentencing and judgment with the Chief
Justice,12
this disciplinary process would have been initiated within a short time after
his plea (instead of six months later), and the Respondent would have been
suspended from the practice of law soon thereafter. Rule 7.3, RGDP. Rule 7.2
allows, but does not require, the OBA to forward this documentation to the Chief
Justice when it receives it, and, in this case, the OBA did not do so. Rather,
the OBA filed this disciplinary proceeding under Rule 6 of the RGDP. The OBA was
previously warned about taking advantage of a court clerk's failure to comply
with Rule 7.2 in State ex rel. Casey, 2012 OK 93, 295 P.3d 1096 (Kauger, J.
concurring in part/dissenting in part); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v.
Conrady, 2012 OK 29, 275 P.3d 133 (Kauger, J. concurring
specially).
¶21 Because neither the district clerk nor the OBA filed the order deferring
the judgment and sentence in the criminal case with the Chief Justice pursuant
to Rule 7.2 of the RGDP, we cannot follow the Rule 7 procedures. However, our
discipline would be uneven if this Court ignores Rule 7 and allows a lawyer to
escape suspension merely because a district court clerk failed to follow Rule
7.2. Further, it would be inconsistent for this Court to impose discipline of a
suspension under Rule 7 for criminal acts showing an unfitness to practice law
but not do so when the proceeding is filed under Rule 6. This Court will not
allow the OBA to circumvent Rule 7's mandates by bringing this proceeding under
Rule 6 rather than filing the documents from the criminal proceeding with the
Chief Justice. Under Rule 7.3, an immediate interim suspension is mandated as
part of the discipline to protect the public and the integrity of the judicial
system and the reputation of the bar.
¶22 In this regard and because the OBA's failed to take heed after the
warnings in Casey and in Conrady, it has become necessary to take
more assertive measures in addressing the problem of the OBA electing to file
what should be a Rule 7 proceeding under Rule 6. In order to remedy this
problem, the OBA is directed, in all future cases, to furnish certified copies
of documents listed in Rule 7.2 to the Chief Justice within five days of
receiving such documents.
¶23 In support of their request for public reprimand, the OBA and Respondent
cite to State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Corrales, 2012 OK 64, 280 P.3d 968 (pled to three counts
of assault and battery; did not involve a client or former client); State ex
rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Murdock, 2010 OK 32, 236 P.3d 107 (entered Alford plea
to the misdemeanor charge of Outraging Public Decency, in violation of 21 O.S.2001 § 22; did not involve a
client or former client); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Garrett, 2005 OK 91, 127 P.3d 600 (pled guilty to
misdemeanor battery; no client or former client involved); State ex rel.
Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Foster, 2000
OK 4, 995 P.2d 1138
(feloniously touching a minor with intent to commit felony of procuring obscene
and indecent photographs); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sopher, 1993 OK 55, 852 P.2d 707 (unwelcome sexual
advances toward client and client's mother). One of the purposes of discipline
is to deter like misconduct in the practicing bar. State ex rel. Okla. Bar
Ass'n v. Golden, 2008 OK 39,
¶ 11, 201 P.3d 862, 864. It is
obvious from Respondent's misconduct that the cases relied on by Respondent in
his quest for public censure did not serve to deter Respondent.
¶24 As incidents of domestic and intimate partner abuse rise and become the
focus of legislation, see 21
O.S.2011, § 644(C), and public attention,13 it becomes more incumbent on this
Court to protect the public by sending a message to other lawyers that this
misconduct is considered a serious breach of a lawyer's ethical duty and will
not be tolerated. The trial judge thought it necessary to keep Respondent in the
criminal system for a full two years for the safety of the public. Consistent
with the trial judge's logic, anything less than a two-year suspension from the
practice of law does not protect the public, nor would anything less than a
two-year suspension protect the integrity of the judicial system and the
reputation of the bar.
V. CONCLUSION
¶25 Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) of the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP, and
his actions show a lack of fitness to practice law and have brought disrepute to
the judicial system and the legal profession. Respondent stands suspended from
the practice of law for two years; however, if Respondent's judgment and
sentencing is accelerated, this Court may reconsider the discipline imposed
today. The OBA is directed to immediately notify this Court of any motion to or
order accelerating the judgment and sentence.
¶26 The OBA filed an application for costs pursuant to Rule 6.16 of the RGDP
in the amount of $718.68. Because this proceeding was not brought under the
proper rule, the motion for costs is denied.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED; MOTION TO ASSESS COSTS DENIED.
Concur: Reif, V.C.J., and Kauger, Taylor, Combs, and Gurich, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part: Colbert, C.J., and Watt, J.
Dissent: Winchester and Edmondson, JJ.
Appendix A
The text messages follow.
Date unknown:
Respondent: "Want to spend the rest of my life w ypu"
Respondent: "They do it's not me. They both said it"
Respondent: "They can tell that I love you"
J.D.: "Clean up. See you weds"
Respondent: "Clea n up?"
The messages from October 24, 2011, follow.
Respondent: "Good morning I love you."
J.D.: "Way too early."
Respondent: "Agreed."
Respondent: "Call me when you get to Miami. When do you get back on Wed,? And
let's go out Wed, night"
J.D.: "Not sure on Weds. Haven't booked my ticket. Will depend on
availability. Sadly right now I don't want anything but sleep. California has me
all messed up."
Respondent: "I understand. But plan on it."
J.D.: "Depends on when I get back. I have to go to OKC on Thursday
morning."
Respondent: "Nor taking no. So just plan on it."
Respondent: "Ok was it a good day?"
Respondent: "I love you."
J.D.: "Yes it was a good day. How was yours?"
Respondent: "Ok this may seem silly, but I changed your contact info. It had
been under [D.] for a year. It's now [J.]. It's about time."
Respondent: "I love you [J.D.]."
The messages from October 25, 2011, follow.
Respondent: "Good morning. I love you."
Respondent: "Hello"
J.D.: "Hey. Getting dressed. Meeting Greg for breakfast"
Respondent: "Ok I'm sort of having anxiety. Dint know who Greg is but I need
to know you love me. O"
J.D.: "Greg is my work associate. I do love you."
Respondent: "Thank you I really needed that. I miss you so much it
hurts."
Respondent: "Just thinking of you."
Respondent: "Hello [J.D.]."
J.D.: "Hey."
Respondent: "You busy or can I call?"
J.D.: "Sorry on a cc"
Respondent: "I understand thank to for calling I'll call you later."
Respondent: "Do you know I love you?"
J.D.: "Just got to dinner. Hour walk on the beach. Amazing"
Respondent: "Super so do you know?"
J.D.: "Nope"
Respondent: "I love you very very much"
J.D.: "We will see"
Respondent: "I know. I understand you ate wary. Please believe me you are all
I think about. I know I need to prove it more. I will. Do you love me
[J.D.]?"
Respondent: "Please respond"
Respondent: "Did I do something."
J.D.: "On my way to hotel"
Respondent: "Ok can I call in a bit?"
Respondent: "Called please"
J.D.: "?? Just got to hotel"
Respondent: "Sorry meant call me please"
J.D.: "??"
Respondent: "Please answer I want to talk some more I'm sorry I live you"
J.D.: "I'm sorry I love you too?"
Respondent: "Please answer"
J.D.: "I don't want to talk to you anymore"
Respondent: "Please just for a minute"
J.D.: "Why?"
Respondent: "I don't want to ent the conversation like that"
Respondent: "Please [J.D.]"
J.D.: "How do you want to end it?"
Respondent: "I liove you"
Respondent: "Better"
Respondent: "I want it to end that we end up together because we love and
respect each other. I dint want us to end"
Respondent: "Please let me hear you voice"
Respondent: "Please give me five minutes"
J.D.: "1 minute"
Respondent: "Ok"
Respondent: "I'm sorry. I don't want anyone but you."
J.D.: "Keep this up you can have anyone but me
You have no idea how much I
challenge myself about you
When you push you over me. Not a win win"
Respondent: "I don't understand"
J.D.: "?"
Respondent: "The last sentence"
Respondent: "I didn't understand it"
J.D.: "It's all about you"
Respondent "I asked what I can do for you, as far as I'm concerned it's all
about you and how I fix my mistakes."
Respondent: "Can I ask you a question?"
J.D.: "going to bed. Do not want to talk to you"
Respondent: "Ok may I text you a question?"
J.D.: "Like you ask?"
Respondent: "May I please?"
J.D.: "That was your question. yep. Done"
Respondent: "No I mean may I ask you a question?"
J.D.: "That's question 3"
Respondent: "Well you never said I could ask so not sure but do I have a
chance or do you hate me top much? I love you but I don't want to hurt you. I
know I've said it before, I'm trying I rally am."
Respondent: "Yours tired get some rest and well talk tomorrow can't wait to
see you. Mark"
Respondent: "Just wanted to say good nite. I love you."
Respondent: "You asleep?"
The messages from October 26, 2011, follow.
At 5:43 am
Respondent: "Good morning [J.D.]. I love you can't wait to see you
tonite."
At 7:20 am
Respondent: "Hello?"
J.D.: "Hey. At breakfast. Heading to the office."
Respondent: "Can I call in a bit?"
At 7:31 am
Respondent: "Do you love me?
Respondent: "Hey"
J.D.: "I'll be free this afternoon"
At 7:47 am
Respondent: "Do you live me? Can I see you tonite?"
Respondent: "Please tell me you love me."
J.D.: "I love you"
Respondent: "Thank you. I hope so. I really am trying. I love you
[J.D.]."
J.D.: "I know you are trying."
At 8:01 am
Respondent: "You didn't say that you loved me to get me to calm down, you
really do live me?
Respondent: "Sorry love me"
Respondent: "I love you and I'll keep trying."
At 8:45 am
At 9:42 am
Respondent: "Damn I miss you"
At 10:42 am
Respondent: "I'm in depo this aft."
At 11:58
Respondent: "May I see you tonite?"
J.D.: "Yes. If I get back ontime. 830. I leave for OKC tomorrow morning."
Discussion about dinner menu.
J.D.: ". . . Also I have a really tight connection in Dallas. If I miss it
next one gets in at 10"
Respondent: "I can't wait until 10; what do want for dinner then?"
At 12:17 pm
J.D.: "It will be too late for me to eat."
Respondent: "Ok I love you [J.D.]."
At 1:53 pm
Respondent: "Just thinking of you"
Respondent: "Getting cooler here."
At 6:57 pm
Respondent: Did you land in DFW yet?"
J.D.: "Just got here. Flight in 40 min. . . ."
More discussion about dinner menu and children
Respondent: ". . . [E.] thinks you should marry me"
Respondent: "I agree w her"
Respondent: "I love you [J.D.]"
Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
| Cite |
Name |
Level |
| None Found. |
Citationizer: Table of Authority
| Cite |
Name |
Level |
| Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 1992 OK 164, 848 P.2d 543, | State, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly | Discussed |
| | 1993 OK 55, 852 P.2d 707, 64 OBJ 1345, | State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sopher | Discussed |
| | 1994 OK 12, 870 P.2d 770, | State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Assn. v. Livshee | Discussed |
| | 2002 OK 84, 60 P.3d 1024, | STATE ex. rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. SHOFNER | Discussed |
| | 2005 OK 16, 114 P.3d 414, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHAPMAN | Discussed |
| | 2005 OK 33, 121 P.3d 1058, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DOWNES | Discussed |
| | 2005 OK 91, 127 P.3d 600, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GARRETT | Discussed |
| | 2008 OK 39, 201 P.3d 862, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GOLDEN | Discussed |
| | 2010 OK 32, 236 P.3d 107, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MURDOCK | Discussed |
| | 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WHITEBOOK | Discussed |
| | 2012 OK 29, 275 P.3d 133, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CONRADY | Discussed |
| | 2012 OK 64, 280 P.3d 968, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CORRALES | Discussed |
| | 2012 OK 93, 295 P.3d 1096, | STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. CASEY | Discussed |
| | 2000 OK 4, 995 P.2d 1138, 71 OBJ 128, | State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Foster | Discussed |
| Title 21. Crimes and Punishments |
| | Cite | Name | Level |
| | 21 O.S. 22, | Acts Resulting in Gross Injury - Misdemeanor | Cited |
| | 21 O.S. 644, | Punishment for Assault and Battery | Discussed |
| | 21 O.S. 1760, | Maliciously Defacing Property of Another - Penalty - Civil Action | Cited |
