State ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith

8 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Bailey

    2023 OK 34 (Okla. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    ¶26 A criminal arrest where a lawyer has admitted to the conduct may be used to support an adjudication of a violation of Rule 1.3, even when a District Attorney ultimately declines to file the criminal charge. For example in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, 246 P.3d 1090, we explained the record was sufficient to show a violation of Rule 1.3 after a lawyer's arrest using forged prescriptions and the District Attorney subsequently declined to prosecute. Id. 2011 OK 8, ¶¶ 5,14, 246 P.3d at 1092, 1094.

  2. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Brown

    2013 OK 40 (Okla. 2013)   Cited 3 times
    In State of Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Brown, 2013 OK 40, ¶3, 303 P.3d 895, 902 (Combs, J., dissenting) I wrote, "[the] Respondent has entered a plea of guilty to a felony and should not be allowed to practice law while his sentencing status remains in doubt.

    The Court is not bound by their recommendation, but reviews the matter de novo. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8 ¶9, 246 P.3d 1090, 1093. To be reinstated, an attorney must make a showing that, over a significant amount of time, he or she has maintained sobriety and refrained from abusing drugs or alcohol; passed random drug tests; attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; sought necessary counseling and participated in Lawyers Helping Lawyers; has diligently pursued his or her sobriety and has met the other factors necessary for reinstatement.

  3. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Willis

    2022 OK 15 (Okla. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    With respect to substance-related discipline, "the range of discipline imposed... has been quite wide." State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, ¶ 19, 246 P.3d 1090, 1096. Where the drug offense did not involve or affect attorney-client relations, we have imposed lesser discipline than disbarment.

  4. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Conrady

    2012 OK 29 (Okla. 2012)   Cited 27 times
    In Conrady we found the lawyer's actions -- a domestic incident where he broke into a home and fired several gunshots -- were sufficient to warrant disbarment.

    The PRT recommended a suspension of two-years and one day, and the OBA endorsed this proposed discipline. Counsel for Conrady has requested discipline by public censure or deferment of any suspension as this Court imposed in McBride, Garrett, and State of Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, ¶ 22, 246 P.3d 1090, 1096–1097. Such a request by Conrady is unrealistic considering the gravity of his offense.

  5. State ex Rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Latimer

    2011 OK 78 (Okla. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Because no such evidence was offered, the proceeding was properly commenced pursuant to Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1–A. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, ¶ 13, 246 P.3d 1090. Under the facts presented and in consideration of the agreement of the parties that the cause should be handled as a Rule 6 proceeding, the matter will proceed as such. The allegations of the complaint encompass violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. Supp.2008, Ch. 1, App. 3–A, specifically: Rule 1.1 [Competent representation, legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and reasonable preparation.

  6. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Latimer

    2011 OK 78 (Okla. 2011)

    Because no such evidence was offered, the proceeding was properly commenced pursuant to Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. Stateex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, ¶13, 246 P.3d 1090. Under the facts presented and in consideration of the agreement of the parties that the cause should be handled as a Rule 6 proceeding, the matter will proceed as such. The allegations of the complaint encompass violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. Supp. 2008, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, specifically: Rule 1.1 [Competent representation, legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and reasonable preparation.

  7. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Shyers

    2023 OK 20 (Okla. 2023)

    Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8 , 246 P.3d 1090 (attorney publicly reprimanded along with one year deferred suspension with probationary conditions for attempting to obtain a controlled substance with a forged prescription); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Aston, 2003 OK 101 , 81 P.3d 676 (attorney suspended for six months for possession of marijuana); State ex rel. Okla.

  8. State v. Knight

    2015 OK 59 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 12 times
    In Knight, the respondent continued to practice law after his license was suspended by this Court for failure to pay his OBA dues and for his failure to follow the rules for a lawyer with a suspended license.

    See, e.g., State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Ward, 2015 OK 48, ¶ 31, 353 P.3d 509, 520 (“Admissions or stipulations must be supported by testimony and/or exhibits, and we will evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence presented to determine if a lawyer has violated rules governing their professional conduct.”); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mansfield, 2015 OK 22, ¶ 14, 350 P.3d 108, 113 (same); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 2012 OK 29, ¶ 6, 275 P.3d 133, 136 (same); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cox, 2011 OK 73, ¶ 10, 257 P.3d 1005, 1009 (same); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2011 OK 8, 14, 246 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Where respondent admitted to violations of both ORPC and RGDP, we stated that clear and convincing evidence supported the PRT's findings, and it remained for us to determine the appropriate discipline by looking to similar cases.); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 2003 OK 56, ¶ 2, 71 P.3d 18, 21 (“Even when the parties' stipulate to misconduct, the stipulations do not bind us for our duty is to review the evidence de novo to decide if misconduct allegations are established by clear and convincing evidence.”).