State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wagnon

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed reciprocal disciplinary proceedings based on Jeffrey D. Wagnon's resignation from the Texas Bar, together with allegations of misconduct in Oklahoma. The court found that the Texas misconduct was conclusively established and upheld findings concerning several Oklahoma violations, while exonerating Wagnon on one allegation. Wagnon was disbarred and ordered to pay $966.02 in costs.

Holdings

1. Misconduct alleged in the Texas disciplinary proceeding was conclusively established because Wagnon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the allegations but resigned rather than challenge them. The Oklahoma Supreme Court therefore could rely on that misconduct as a basis for reciprocal discipline.
2. Wagnon's conduct in representing Sonya Wilson violated Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2.
3. Wagnon violated Rule 1.2 by moving to vacate a final protective order without the client's knowledge or consent and violated Rule 1.4 by failing to explain the matter sufficiently to permit the client to make an informed decision.
4. The allegation that Wagnon's conduct left Gosvener without the protection of any order was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and Wagnon was exonerated on that allegation.
5. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction for Wagnon's serious, repeated misconduct affecting seven clients in two states, aggravated by his failure to respond adequately to the disciplinary processes.
6. Wagnon was required to reimburse the Oklahoma Bar Association $966.02 for costs incurred in the investigation, preparation of the record, and proceedings, payable within ninety days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether misconduct underlying Wagnon's resignation from the Texas Bar was conclusively established for purposes of reciprocal discipline in Oklahoma.
2. Whether Wagnon committed the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct violations found by the trial panel.
3. Whether the evidence established that Wagnon's conduct left the client without protection of an emergency or final protective order.
4. What disciplinary sanction was warranted in light of the misconduct and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
5. Whether Wagnon should be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

Disposition

other