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

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Passmore, 264 P.3d 1238 (Okla. 2011) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 25, 2011

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary allegations that Joe Richard Passmore II abandoned multiple clients, failed to communicate with them, failed to return files or unearned fees, and did not respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association or disciplinary proceedings. Exercising de novo review, the court ordered disbarment, required compliance with client-notification procedures, assessed $1,057.41 in costs, and permitted reinstatement proceedings no earlier than five years after the opinion.

Holdings

  1. Clear and convincing evidence established that Passmore neglected and abandoned his clients, failed to communicate with them, failed to respond to the Bar's inquiries and disciplinary process, and violated the cited Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
  2. Passmore violated Rule 1.5(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by accepting advance payments for legal services and costs, failing to perform the agreed work, and failing to return the unearned portion.
  3. Disbarment was the appropriate discipline because Passmore's complete disregard for his clients, his professional responsibilities, and the Bar's disciplinary procedures warranted disbarment rather than a suspension of two years and one day.
  4. The Oklahoma Bar Association was entitled to recover $1,057.41 in costs incurred in the disciplinary proceeding.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Passmore violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
  2. Whether Passmore's failure to perform agreed legal services after accepting advance fees and costs violated Rule 1.5(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
  3. Whether disbarment, rather than the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommended suspension of two years and one day, was the appropriate discipline.
  4. Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association was entitled to reimbursement of the costs incurred in the disciplinary proceeding.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Sheridan, 2003 OK 80, 84 P.3d 710(followed)
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517(distinguished)
  • Matter of Reinstatement of Munson, 2010 OK 27, 286 P.3d 96(followed)
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitworth, 2008 OK 22, 183 P.3d 984(followed)
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Todd, 1992 OK 81, 833 P.2d 260(followed)
  • Matter of Reinstatement of Mumina, 2009 OK 76, 225 P.3d 804(followed)
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Pacenza, 2006 OK 23, 136 P.3d 616(followed)
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. McCoy, 1996 OK 27, 912 P.2d 856(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…