State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Loeliger11/1/2005
ad been filed. Sullivan requested a copy of the petition and on February 26, 2004, respondent faxed him the original petition filed by Berger some three years earlier. On the same day, respondent and Sullivan again discussed the alleged $15,000 settlement offer. Within days, respondent called to inform Sullivan that Westquip's offer was $5,800.
Finally, on March 2, 2004, respondent informed Sullivan that Westquip had increased its offer to $7,400. On March 7, 2004, Sullivan went to respondent's office where respondent tendered a check for $7,400. The check was funded by respondent's personal bank account. At this time, respondent also required Sullivan to sign a release form, which allegedly absolved Westquip of all liability in consideration of the $7,400 "settlement." Respondent's inconsistent behavior aroused Sullivan's suspicion, prompting Sullivan to discover, via the internet, that respondent had never filed the claim against Westquip. Sullivan filed a grievance with the Bar Association on June 30, 2004. The Bar Association forwarded the grievance to the respondent on August 2, 2004, requesting a reply within two weeks. The Bar Association sent another letter on August 27, 2004, indicating that it had received only a partial, incomplete fax on the matter, and asking for a written response in five days. The Bar Association received a partial response from the respondent on September 7, 2004, which was dated August 16, 2004. On September 14, 2004, the Bar Association notified the respondent that it was opening the matter for a formal investigation. The Bar Association sent a final request for a response on October 6, 2004, and the respondent sent a second response letter to the Bar Association, which was received on October 12, 2004.
On May 10, 2005, the Bar Association filed this cause as a Rule 6 proceeding. The respondent admitted and stipulated that his conduct violated the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, with the exception of Rule 8.4(c). A hearing was conducted before the trial panel on June 24, 2005, at which the respondent and his law partner were the only witnesses and the agreed stipulations were introduced as evidence.
At the hearing, the respondent testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. He expressed remorse, acknowledged his wrongdoing and recognized how his behavior reflected poorly on the entire Bar. The respondent's law partner testified that the respondent personally disclosed the matter to him and that, regardless of what discipline was imposed, he would be willing to work with the respondent again.
On July 14, 2005, the trial panel filed its report, relying on the respondent's testimony and the agreed stipulations of the parties. It found that the respondent's misconduct violated the provisions of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 8.4(a) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3, Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedures, but made no specific finding regarding a violation of Rule 8.4(c). Although the Bar Association argued for a suspension of sixty days as an appropriate sanction, the trial panel recommended discipline by public censure and the imposition of costs.
The Bar Association filed its brief-in-chief and an unopposed application to assess costs on August 10, 2005. The respondent filed his response brief on August 25, 2005. On September 2, 2005, the Bar Association waived the opportunity to file a response brief.
I. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A DETERMINATION THAT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF ETHICAL VIOLATIONS
In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction. We are not bound by agreed
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|