 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Martin9/13/2005
__ P.3d __
ORDER
Upon consideration of (1) respondent's affidavit, prepared in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, by which a request is made that he be allowed to relinquish his license to practice law (cum membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association ) and (2) complainant's application for order approving resignation be granted,
THE COURT FINDS AND HOLDS:
1. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him Cameron W. Martin [respondent] offered, on 20 June 2005, to surrender his license to practice law and to resign from Bar membership.
2. Respondent's act of surrender and resignation was freely and voluntarily made without coercion or duress. Respondent is fully aware of the legal consequences that will flow from his resignation.
3. Respondent is aware of pending investigations by the Bar's general counsel into grievances made against him. If proven, these grievances would constitute violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 5.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16, 3.2, 8.1(b), and 8.4, Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch.1. App. 3-A, as well as of his oath as a licensed Oklahoma lawyer.
4. The grievances contain these client allegations:
Count I Respondent neglected, failed to communicate with and failed to provide competent service to his client, Shawn Hopkins. The matter - a child custody modification - remains unfinished.
Count II Respondent failed to respond to the complainant's correspondence into the investigation of grievances made by Marilyn Kirk and Shawn Hopkins as required by Rule 5.2, RGDP. Subpoenas were served on the respondent and depositions scheduled in these matters. Although respondent's request for a continuance of the depositions was granted by complainant, respondent failed to provide an agreed-upon, although late, response and failed to appear for the scheduled depositions.
Enhancement Respondent failed to respond to correspondence from complainant concerning a grievance as required by Rule 5.2, RGDP. A subpoena was issued, and respondent's deposition was taken in order to obtain a response to the grievance. Respondent received a private reprimand from the Professional Responsibility Commission (PRT) on 30 August 2002.
Count III Because respondent failed to attend a previously scheduled hearing, his client's application for contempt against an ex-spouse was dismissed. His client, Cleo Broomhall, paid respondent an additional fee to re-initiate the application for the contempt process. Respondent has failed to communicate with his client and to respond to the grievance. Certified mail has been returned to complainant, marked "unclaimed." A subpoena was issued to depose respondent concerning this matter but service of process could not be accomplished.
Count IV Respondent neglected, failed to communicate with and failed to provide competent service to Franklin Wilborn, his client in a workers' compensation cause. Respondent has failed to respond to complainant's inquiries concerning the grievance filed by the client. Certified mail sent to him has been returned, marked "unclaimed." A subpoena was issued but service of process could not be accomplished.
Count V Respondent neglected, failed to communicate with and failed to provide completed services to Wilma Carpenter, his client in a probate action. Respondent has failed to respond to complaint's inquiries into the grievance filed by Carpenter and the formal investigation of the matter.
Page 1 2 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|