 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Simank2/6/2001
The Oklahoma Bar Association charged respondent with seven counts of professional misconduct. The parties entered into Joint Stipulations of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Agreed Recommendation for Discipline. Following a hearing, the trial panel recommended that Simank receive a public reprimand from this Court. Upon de novo review, we conclude Simank should be publicly reprimanded and pay the costs of these proceedings.
RESPONDENT PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS.
OPINION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 18, 2000 the Office of the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a seven-count complaint against Respondent Edmund Dow Simank, II.
On April 27, 2000 a hearing was held on the merits. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties submitted their Joint Stipulations of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Agreed Recommendation for Discipline to the Trial Panel. It was noted in opening statements that the Joint Stipulations were noticeably different than the allegations set out in the complaint. Although Simank and the Bar stipulated that a private reprimand would be appropriate discipline, the Trial Panel concluded, after the hearing, that Simank should receive a public reprimand.
Simank called four witnesses who testified to his moral character and reputation as an attorney. Simank was also examined by the Bar Association, his attorney, and by the members of the trial panel.
On June 7, 2000, the trial panel filed its Report of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal and recommended, contrary to the Agreed Recommendation for Discipline submitted by the parties, that Simank be publicly reprimanded by this Court.
On July 7, 2000, the parties filed a Joint Brief in Partial Support of Report of Professional Responsibility Tribunal. On July 5, 2000, an Application to Assess Costs was filed by the Bar Association.
The Oklahoma Bar Association's complaint against Simank arose out of three grievances filed by Simank's clients or former clients, Cynthia Gambrell, Herman Farris, and Jan Fees. The parties stipulated and the Trial Panel found that none of the conduct that gave rise to the three grievances was sufficient to support the imposition of discipline against Simank. Nevertheless, the Trial Panel found that the investigation of the three grievances showed misconduct on Simank's part serious enough to warrant its recommendation of a public reprimand. The Trial Panel concluded that Simank's having failed to respond to many letters sent to him by the Oklahoma Bar Association, having hired a non-lawyer assistant with inadequate investigation, and having failed to adequately supervise his assistant, warranted a recommendation of discipline in the form of a public reprimand.
FACTS
Count I
Count I of the Bar's complaint relates to a combined personal injury claim and Workers' Compensation Court claim, which claim arose from injuries Cynthia Gambrell sustained in the course of her employment in an automobile accident on January 2, 1997. Ms. Gambrell retained Simank to represent her in both claims. Simank handled the Workers' Compensation Court claim without incident but encountered problems concerning the personal injury claim. Simank filed suit on Ms. Gambrell's behalf on February 19, 1998, but the suit was dismissed without Simank's knowledge for failure to prosecute.
Simank did not receive a copy of the motion to dismiss the case and was unaware that it had been dismissed, although the court had done so on October 2, 1998. In January 1999, Simank asked a non-lawyer assistant, Thomas Ashley Wilkes, to che
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|