Rule 5.2, RGDP. In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶33, 240 P.3d 675, 686, we determined that failure of a lawyer to respond to the OBA's investigative inquiries is a serious offense which causes utilization of greater resources and creates substantial delays in addressing complaints of clients who have already suffered the lawyer's procrastination. We hold the Complainant has proven by clear and convincing evidence the Respondent violated Rule 5.2, RGDP.
In Scott we first reviewed our opinions that imposed the discipline of suspension from the practice of law for two years and one day. The two cases reviewed were State of Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517 and State of Oklahoma ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, 240 P.3d 675. ¶27 In Whitebook, an attorney was hired by two separate clients for work on probate matters.
¶81 In State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, 240 P.3d 675, the respondent was retained by numerous clients to pursue post-conviction relief on their behalf.
Id. ¶ 26, 242 P.3d at 523. ¶27 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, 240 P.3d 675, the respondent faced numerous counts of misconduct alleging, among other things, that he failed to diligently pursue cases on behalf of several clients, failed to communicate with them regarding the status of their cases, and failed to return thousands of dollars in unearned fees. The respondent also admitted that he failed to respond to some of the clients' grievances and provided misleading and inadequate responses to others.
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶25, 240 P.3d 675, 684. The major cause of Abdoveis' misconduct appears to be attributed to his caseload.
¶ 35 Mitigating circumstances may be considered when assessing the appropriate quantum of discipline. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶ 25, 240 P.3d 675, 684
However, neither the findings of fact of the trial panel nor its view of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses binds this Court. See State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶ 6, 240 P.3d 675, 679. The PRT's recommendation is merely advisory.
A disability does not immunize one from disciplinary measures and there must be shown a causal relationship between the condition and the professional misconduct. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶ 25, 240 P.3d 675. The Respondent did not raise Rule 10 as a defense and we have not considered factors involved in a Rule 10 proceeding. State ex rel Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Young, 2007 OK 92, ¶ 39, 175 P.3d 371.
A disability does not immunize one from disciplinary measures and there must be shown a causal relationship between the condition and the professional misconduct. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶25, 240 P.3d 675. The Respondent did not raise Rule 10 as a defense and we have not considered factors involved in a Rule 10 proceeding.State ex rel Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Young, 2007 OK 92, ¶39, 175 P.3d 371.
To make such a determination, this Court must be presented with a record sufficient to permit an independent, on-the-record review for the crafting of appropriate discipline. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 2010 OK 67, ¶ 6, 240 P.3d 675;State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder, 2002 OK 51, ¶ 6, 51 P.3d 570. It is the view of this Court that the record before us is sufficient to make such a determination. I.