Summary
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reviewed disciplinary charges against attorney John H.T. Sheridan involving neglect of client matters, inadequate communication, mishandling of client funds, failure to supervise a nonlawyer employee, misleading firm letterhead, and failure to respond to bar investigations. After de novo review, the court found multiple violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The court suspended Sheridan from practicing law for six months and ordered client refunds, payment of proceeding costs, and participation in the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Management Assistance Program.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence established by clear and convincing evidence that Sheridan violated the charged Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Whether Sheridan violated the professional-conduct rules governing competence, diligence, communication, reasonable fees, safekeeping and refund of client funds, conflicts in settling a malpractice claim, supervision of a nonlawyer, misleading firm names, and responses to bar inquiries.
- Whether using letterhead stating or implying a partnership with Sheridan's former law-firm partner violated Rule 7.5(d), even absent proof of an intent to deceive.
- Whether an assistant district attorney is a public officer for purposes of Rule 7.5(c).
- What discipline was appropriate for Sheridan's cumulative misconduct.
Holdings
- Sheridan violated ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2 by failing to competently and diligently handle client matters, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite their litigation.
- Sheridan violated ORPC Rules 1.5, 1.15, and 1.16 by charging an unreasonable fee, depositing advance retainers into his operating account rather than segregating them in trust, and failing to timely refund unearned fees and other client payments.
- Sheridan violated ORPC Rule 5.3 by failing to properly supervise his nonlawyer employee and take reasonable remedial action after learning of her interference with client communications and bar correspondence.
- Sheridan violated ORPC Rule 1.8(h) by settling a client's claim against him without advising the client in writing that independent representation was appropriate.
- Sheridan did not violate ORPC Rule 7.5(c) because an assistant district attorney is not a public officer for purposes of that rule.
- Sheridan violated ORPC Rule 7.5(d) by continuing to use letterhead stating or implying that he practiced in partnership with his brother after the brother had left the firm; intent to deceive was not an element of the violation.
- The evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that Sheridan violated ORPC Rule 3.2 in the Olden matter because he reviewed the criminal file and medical records and concluded there was no basis for post-conviction relief.
- A six-month suspension, restitution, payment of proceeding costs, and participation in the Oklahoma Bar Association's Management Assistance Program were appropriate sanctions for Sheridan's extensive neglect, lack of diligence, inadequate supervision, mishandling of client funds, failure to refund unearned fees, misleading firm letterhead, and failure to respond to bar inquiries.
Key quotations
“Even though the problems were exacerbated by Debbie's behavior, Respondent was the one who failed to fulfill his responsibilities to his clients by making certain that the cases were properly handled.” (84 P.3d 717, ¶ 31)
“Intent to deceive in not an element of the violation.” (84 P.3d 718, ¶ 39)
“Given the goals of discipline to protect the public, to protect the courts, to preserve the integrity of the bar, and to deter misconduct by both the lawyer being disciplined and other members of the bar, we believe the appropriate discipline is suspension from the practice of law for six months.” (84 P.3d 719, ¶ 46)
Factual background
Sheridan represented multiple clients in property, probate, divorce, bankruptcy, and post-conviction matters but failed to timely file pleadings, communicate with clients, complete agreed work, refund unearned fees, or properly safeguard client funds. His nonlawyer employee and former spouse intercepted communications and misrepresented filing and hearing information, while Sheridan failed to supervise her adequately or take sufficient remedial measures after learning of the problems. He also continued using law-firm letterhead implying a partnership with his brother after the brother had left and failed to respond timely and fully to Oklahoma Bar Association inquiries.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association charged Sheridan with eleven counts of professional misconduct; one count was withdrawn and count VIII was dismissed. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that Sheridan violated multiple professional-conduct and disciplinary-proceeding rules and recommended a sixty-day suspension, restitution, costs, and participation in a management-assistance program. On de novo review, the Supreme Court found additional or different violations in several respects and suspended Sheridan for six months with restitution, costs, and program-participation requirements.