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

2013 OK 19, 299 P.3d 493 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · April 2, 2013

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary charges against attorney Lagailda F. Barnes for converting client funds and violating applicable disciplinary and professional-conduct rules. The Court imposed a two-year suspension, rather than the recommended two-years-and-one-day suspension, and ordered payment of $960.47 in proceeding costs as a condition of reinstatement.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Reif, Vice Chief Justice; Reif, V.C.J.; Kauger, J.; Edmondson, J.; Taylor, J.; Combs, J.; Gurich, J.; Colbert, C.J.; Watt, J.; Winchester, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
April 2, 2013
Procedural posture
Original attorney-discipline proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found misconduct and recommended a suspension of two years and one day; the Supreme Court independently reviewed the matter and imposed a two-year suspension.
Standard of review
Full-scale, nondeferential, de novo examination of all relevant facts; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommendation is helpful but not binding.
Precedential value
Published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion; precedential attorney-discipline decision.
Parties
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Lagailda F. Barnes
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurestandard of reviewremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Barnes violated the Oklahoma disciplinary rules by converting client funds.
  2. What discipline was appropriate in light of the misconduct and the mitigating circumstances.
  3. Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Barnes and made a condition of reinstatement.

Holdings

  1. By clear and convincing evidence, Barnes violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and Rules 1.15 and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct by converting her client's funds.
  2. The appropriate discipline was suspension from the practice of law for two years, rather than the two-years-and-one-day suspension recommended by the Professional Responsibility Tribunal.
  3. Barnes was required to pay $960.47 in disciplinary costs as a condition of reinstatement after completing the suspension.

Key quotations

Our responsibility is ... to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession. (¶ 9)
In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction. (¶ 10)
In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction. (¶ 10)
Upon de novo review, we find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rule 1.3, RGDP, and Rules 1.15 and 84(c), RPC, by converting her client's funds, and that such violations constitute professional misconduct. (¶ 12)
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND PAY THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING AS A CONDITION OF REINSTATEMENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION. (¶ 18)

Factual background

Barnes received $48,496.12 on behalf of an incarcerated client under a power of attorney and agreed to disburse funds as directed while safeguarding the remainder. She used the funds, initially represented that they were unavailable, and then made several partial payments while attempting to obtain a loan. She ultimately repaid the client in full with interest, and the record reflected cooperation, remorse, lack of prior disciplinary history, and health problems.

Procedural history

The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against Barnes on February 21, 2012. After a hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found violations involving conversion of client funds and recommended suspension for two years and one day. The Bar's General Counsel concurred in that recommendation, but the Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, imposed a two-year suspension, and assessed $960.47 in costs as a condition of reinstatement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…