 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Scroggs3/4/2003
__ P.3d __
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE
The Oklahoma Bar Association brought a Rule Six proceeding to impose professional discipline on Respondent. The matter was contested and tried before a Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. The Trial Panel filed its report with this Court and recommended that Respondent be suspended for a period of one year. Upon a de novo review we find that Respondent violated Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.15(a), (b) (c), 1.16(a)(5), 3.2, and 8.1(a) and 8.4(c), and Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and conclude that he should be suspended from the practice of law for one year and pay costs.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR ONE YEAR AND COSTS IMPOSED
The allegations against Respondent relate to four lawyer-client relationships involving Alvin Hall and his wife, Virginia Barnes, Reida Blair, and Mr. and Mrs. Worsham. The Trial Panel concluded that Respondent violated certain rules of professional conduct and recommended a suspension for one year. The Bar Association (Bar) seeks to have Respondent suspended for two years and a day or disbarred.
We exercise an exclusive, original, and non-delegable jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law, and in our de novo review of the trial panel's record the conclusions and recommendations of that panel are neither binding nor persuasive. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Schraeder, 2002 OK 51, 5, 51 P.3d 570, 573 - 574. We now review the evidence presented before the Trial Panel, and apply the applicable rule of professional conduct.
I.
Alvin Hall filed a discrimination complaint with the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission. In January 1998 Hall hired Respondent, and paid him $800, including $150.00 for court costs. The $800 was deposited into Respondent's operating account.
The Commission told Hall to provide a letter of representation from his lawyer. Due to Mr. Hall's health his wife communicated with Respondent, and she recorded those conversations. Respondent said that he would represent Hall before the Commission and send it a letter of representation. He did not do this. Respondent said that he would draft a Petition to be filed and mail a copy to Hall. He did not do this either.
Respondent advised that a right-to-sue letter was needed to file suit, and then later that such a letter was not needed. Respondent advised Hall that 180 days must lapse between filing of a Commission complaint and filing a suit in court. In April 1998 Respondent advised Hall that they could proceed. On April 24, 1998, Hall telephoned Respondent's receptionist and stated that he was terminating the lawyer-client relationship, and that he wanted a refund of all monies he had paid. Hall hired a different lawyer who filed the action. The case was subsequently dismissed, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the dismissal was due to some act of Respondent. Hall filed a complaint with the Tulsa County Bar Association, Respondent was made aware of this complaint and refunded $150 to Hall on April 6, 1999.
Respondent testified that he prepared a petition for filing in the Hall case. However, it was not filed because he was waiting for a 180-day period to expire prior to filing. He testified that his view of when to file the action did not change, but that the words he used when talking to the Halls could have been misunderstood. He was terminated as Hall's lawyer prior to the expiration of the 180-day period.
Respondent further testified that Hall informed his office staff of the termination when h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|