State v. Massad

7 Citing cases

  1. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Rohrback

    323 Md. 79 (Md. 1991)   Cited 6 times
    Suspending lawyer for forty-five days for misrepresenting to a probation officer that his client was using a false name

    The Thoreen court reasoned in part that the deception of the trial judge violated the Washington Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(4) ("A lawyer shall not [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."). And see Miskovsky v. State, 586 P.2d 1104 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978); State v. Massad, 334 P.2d 787 (Okla. 1959); ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. 914 (1966). In the case before us Rohrback, knowingly and actively, participated in Asbury's fraud on Lambert. By assisting Rohrback in the fraudulent suppression of a fact material to the PSI, Rohrback had the duty under Rule 4.1 to disclose the material fact, and he failed to do so.

  2. State ex Rel., Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Samara

    725 P.2d 306 (Okla. 1986)   Cited 6 times

    Similarly, warnings given an attorney during dismissal of a prior complaint have been held to be relevant upon investigation and adjudication of later complaints. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Assn. v. Massad, 334 P.2d 787 (Okla. 1959). Although the evidence in the record is contested and conflicting in part, we believe that it established the respondent had:

  3. State ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Samara

    683 P.2d 979 (Okla. 1984)   Cited 44 times
    Concluding suspended lawyer violated prohibition on unauthorized practice of law by submitting correspondence identifying him as attorney-at-law, maintaining office door with words law office, negotiating insurance settlements, and appearing in court on behalf of a client

    Similarly, warnings given an attorney during dismissal of a prior complaint have been held to be relevant upon investigation and adjudication of later complaints. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Assn. v. Massad, 334 P.2d 787 (Okla. 1959). Prior case law from this Court indicates this tribunal will not unnecessarily circumscribe disciplinary proceedings by procedural rulings.

  4. Matter of Evinger

    1979 OK 127 (Okla. 1979)   Cited 13 times

    In re Kunkle, 218 N.W.2d 521 (S.D. 1974); Matter of Logan, 70 N.J. 222, 358 A.2d 787 (1976); In re Campbell, 74 Wn.2d 276, 444 P.2d 784 (1968); In re Black, 228 Or. 9, 363 P.2d 206 (1962); In re Ankelis, 164 Or. 676, 103 P.2d 715 (1940). In re Biggers, 24 Okla. 842, 104 P. 1083 (1909); In re Connell 79 Okla. 212, 192 P. 564 (1920) and State v. Massad, 334 P.2d 787, 791 (Okla. 1959).In re Toft v. Ketchum, 18 N.J. 280, 113 A.2d 671, 52 A.L.R.2d 1208 opinion adhered to, 18 N.J. 611, 114 A.2d 863, 52 A.L.R.2d 1217, cert. denied 350 U.S. 887, 76 S.Ct. 141, 100 L.Ed. 782 (1955) that court held:

  5. State ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brandon

    1969 OK 28 (Okla. 1969)   Cited 30 times
    In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brandon, 450 P.2d 824 (Okla. 1969), a similar argument was made where an attorney was disciplined for misconduct, the majority of the conduct occurring before he was licensed as an attorney.

    We also realize that it is our duty to review all disciplinary actions instituted by the Oklahoma Bar Association and to affirm, modify or reverse its findings and recommendation. In re Green, et al., 161 Okla. 1, 16 P.2d 582; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Massad, Okla., 334 P.2d 787. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, comments and recommendation of the Trial Authority is just, reasonable and in line with good conscience and should be adopted.

  6. Iowa State Bar Assn. Com. v. Kraschel

    148 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 1967)   Cited 42 times
    In Kraschel while we recognized that not all jurisdictions have held that a lawyer's failure to file timely tax returns was an act of moral turpitude, we chose to say that it was. 260 Iowa at 197, 199, 148 N.W.2d at 627, 628. While I do not challenge the fifty-one decisions following Kraschel which used the same reasoning to find ethical violations, I do question the imposition of a suspension as a matter of course in all fifty-two cases.

    This proceeding is not criminal, but is special, civil in nature, and has been described as like an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. State v. Clarke, 46 Iowa 155, 159; In re Stice, 184 Kan. 589, 339 P.2d 29, 31; Prime v. State Bar of California, 18 Cal.2d 56, 112 P.2d 881, 884; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Massad, 334 P.2d 787, 791, and citations; In re Morford (Del.), 80 A.2d 429, 432; In re Pennica, 36 N.J. 401, 177 A.2d 721, 730. [4] The extent of persuasion required of the prosecution in disbarment proceedings does not vary according to the type of conduct charged, regardless of whether it amounts to a crime or merely professional misconduct.

  7. Miskovsky v. State ex Rel. Jones

    586 P.2d 1104 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    In Miskovsky v. State ex rel Jones, 586 P.2d 1104, 1108, 1110 (Okla. Cr. 1978), we held that the trial court's responsibility does not extend to determining whether defense counsel is attempting an unauthorized test of a witness' ability to identify the defendant, and that a test such as the one requested in this case may be made at the discretion of the trial court.

    Finally, the oath administered when an attorney is admitted to the Bar states in part, "that you will do no falsehood or consent that any be done in court, and if you know of any you will give knowledge thereof to the judges of the court, or someone of them, that it may be reformed; . . ." State v. Massad, Okla., 334 P.2d 787 (1958), involved an appeal of disbarment proceedings to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In that case, the defense counsel pled a substitute defendant guilty to a charge of being drunk in a public place.