Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered an attorney-discipline proceeding arising from George Wayne Olmstead's no-contest plea to violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act. The court held that the record was sufficient for review and suspended Olmstead from practicing law for one year, effective March 12, 2012, while ordering him to pay proceeding costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the record submitted in the Rule 7 disciplinary proceeding was sufficient for meaningful review and disposition of the charges.
- What discipline was appropriate for Olmstead's criminal conduct and resulting violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
Holdings
- The record, including the no-contest plea, summary of facts, and deferred judgment and sentence, was sufficient to permit meaningful review and disposition of the disciplinary charges.
- Olmstead was suspended from the practice of law for one year, effective March 12, 2012, the date of his interim suspension, and was ordered to pay $2,212.01 in costs within ninety days after the opinion became final.
Key quotations
“We find the record is sufficient for a meaningful review and the appropriate discipline is suspension from practice of law for one year.” (285 P.3d at 1110)
“Past behavior being the best forecaster of future behavior, suspension for one year is the only discipline which will protect the public and restore integrity to the bar lost by Olmstead's misconduct.” (285 P.3d at 1114)
Factual background
George Wayne Olmstead, then an associate district judge in Harper County, used a state-provided computer and email account to download, receive, and store a tremendous volume of adult sexually suggestive material for personal use. He pleaded no contest to violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act, resigned his judicial position as part of the plea agreement, and was placed on probation with deferred imposition of judgment and sentence. The misconduct was widely reported and caused embarrassment and disrepute to the judiciary and legal profession.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association notified the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that Olmstead had entered a no-contest plea to violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act after downloading inappropriate material on a state-owned computer. The Court imposed an interim suspension, denied Olmstead's request to set it aside, and permitted him to seek a hearing and present mitigating evidence. A trial panel recommended a public reprimand, but the Supreme Court independently reviewed the record and imposed a one-year suspension, effective from the date of the interim suspension.