 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Loeliger11/1/2005
ondent knew to be false. Lastly, respondent tendered a bogus settlement check to his unknowing client. If believed, respondent's misrepresentation would have prevented this claim from ever being heard by this Court. Respondent clearly violated Rule 8.4(c) by making misrepresentations to his client to avoid discipline.
II. 20 RESPONDENT'S MISCONDUCT WARRANTS A SIXTY-DAY SUSPENSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS
The Bar argues that respondent should be suspended for sixty days. The respondent contends that the professional responsibility tribunal's recommended public reprimand is appropriate punishment. Respondent does not oppose the imposition of costs.
This Court has not considered facts identical to those presented. However, in similar situations, we have administered discipline ranging from a public reprimand to a two-year suspension. Discipline is administered on a case-by-case basis to deter future impermissible conduct and it is designed to guarantee that the attorney is aware that such conduct is intolerable. Mitigating circumstances weigh into the calculus for determining the appropriate discipline for the attorney's conduct.
Respondent's actions, although a clear violation of the high standards of the legal profession, are not without mitigating circumstances. Respondent has never been disciplined before. Although motivated by respondent's desire to disguise his own negligence, apparently this negligence did not lead to any grave economic harm to the client. We agree with the finding of the tribunal that the shock of respondent's father's sudden death mitigates his failure to file the common law action in a timely fashion. However, we also concur with the tribunal's finding that respondent's loss in no way excuses or mitigates any actions he took to continue his charade after his failure to file Sullivan's claim in a timely manner. Further, payment to Sullivan, out of respondent's own finances, is indicative of respondent's desire to remedy his negligence. However, respondent's behavior is an inexcusable violation of his client's trust and will not be tolerated by this Court.
CONCLUSION
This Court is the sole arbiter of bar discipline. We are free to attribute as much weight to the trial panel's recommendations as we see fit. The trial panel recommended, as appropriate punishment, public censure and the payment of costs. We disagree. We determine that, given respondent's misconduct, his lack of prior disciplinary history, and discipline administered in similar cases, respondent's conduct warrants a sixty-day suspension and the payment of $348.42 in costs.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED; COSTS IMPOSED.
WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, EDMONDSON, COLBERT, JJ., concur.
WATT, C.J., concurs in part, and joins Opala, J., dissenting.
TAYLOR, J., dissents.
OPALA, J., with whom Watt, C.J., joins, dissenting. I would impose a more severe discipline.
Taylor, J., dissenting.
I would suspend the Respondent for at least one year due to his unprecedented, complex, detailed, deceitful and devious montage of lies that went on and on over two years. The client he was sworn to protect became a victim of a selfish and tangled web spun by a lawyer who has shamed his profession.
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.
|
|