In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sheridan , 2003 OK 80, 84 P.3d 710, a lawyer was suspended for six months for neglect and lack of diligence in communicating with clients, handling client's money, communicating with the bar association and refusing to return a retainer. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Whiteley , 1990 OK 46, 792 P.2d 1174, a lawyer received a public censure for failing to act with reasonable diligence, keeping a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, failing to comply with reasonable requests for information, and taking an unreasonable fee. ¶ 23 The OBA recommends this Court follow the discipline in Whiteley and publicly censure Friesen.
¶ 36 In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Bills, 1997 OK 151, 951 P.2d 1090, respondent, who failed to properly deposit a retainer fee, received a public reprimand in light of the efforts to repay the fee and correct the deficiencies in the office practice. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Association v. Whiteley, 1990 OK 46, 792 P.2d 1174, respondent, who failed to properly account for a retainer fee, received a public censure and was required to refund the $1,000.00 fee with interest within six months.
See, e.g., State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Watson, Okla., 897 P.2d 246, 255-256 (1994) (respondent was required to pay as a condition of his reinstatement a fee refund of $16,643.24); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Whiteley, Okla., 792 P.2d 1174, 1176 (1990) (respondent was required to refund a $1,000 fee with interest); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Garvin, Okla., 777 P.2d 926, 928 (1989) (respondent was required to refund a $5,000 retainer fee).See in this connection State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Thomas, Okla., 886 P.2d 477, 479-480 (1994), where the respondent allowed the statute of limitations to run on his client's case.
The neglect of client matters can be the cause of discipline. In Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Whiteley, 792 P.2d 1174 (Okla. 1990), we imposed a public censure on the attorney for failure to communicate with his client after repeated attempts by the client to contact him, for failure to comply with reasonable requests for information, and for failure to attend a hearing. See also Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Borders, 777 P.2d 929, 930 (Okla. 1989) (public reprimand), and Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Durrill, 776 P.2d 560 (Okla. 1989) (nine month suspension).
The language above strongly suggests that SCR 174(3) is designed to guard against in-court disruption of an ongoing proceeding. A typical example of such disruption can be found in State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Whiteley, 792 P.2d 1174 (Okla. 1990), in which the court found that an attorney's combative and disruptive in-court demand for an immediate hearing before a judge on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus constituted conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. Appellant's conduct in serving Judge Huffaker with a copy of the judicial complaint is more appropriately classified as conduct intended to subvert and prejudice the administration of justice, which is covered by SCR 203(4).