Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered attorney-discipline charges against Will Douglas Bradley for neglecting a client matter, failing to communicate regarding fees and case status, and repeatedly failing to respond to Oklahoma Bar Association grievances. The Court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Bradley was suspended from practicing law for eighteen months and ordered to pay costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the record established by clear and convincing evidence that Bradley violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Whether Bradley violated the duties to communicate the scope and basis of a fee, promptly comply with reasonable client requests, and diligently represent clients.
- Whether Bradley's repeated failures to answer bar grievances warranted discipline under Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of Bradley's misconduct, prior disciplinary history, and asserted mitigation.
- Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association was entitled to recover the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
Holdings
- Bradley violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to adequately communicate the scope of Harrill's representation and the basis or rate by which her flat fee would be earned, and by failing to promptly provide requested statements, refunds, and case files to Harrill and Keiser.
- Bradley's repeated failures to timely answer the Harrill and Keiser grievances, despite extensions and repeated notices, violated Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and constituted grounds for discipline.
- An eighteen-month suspension from the practice of law was warranted and appropriate; the trial panel's recommendation of a deferred two-year suspension was insufficient.
- The Oklahoma Bar Association's application to assess $1,117.79 in costs was granted, and Bradley was ordered to pay those costs within ninety days.
Key quotations
“This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Bar disciplinary matters.” (¶23)
“Our standard of review is de novo, and the recommendations of the PRT Trial Panel are advisory and not binding on this Court.” (¶23)
“Protecting the public and purification of the Bar are the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings rather than punishment of the offending attorney.” (¶23)
“We do not believe a deferred suspension as recommended by the Trial Panel is sufficient. We find that a suspension of eighteen months is warranted and appropriate in this case.” (¶29)
Factual background
Bradley represented Brooklyn Layne Harrill in a divorce matter for a $2,500 flat fee but did not adequately communicate the scope of representation or how the fee would be earned. He neglected aspects of Harrill's matter, failed to provide requested fee statements, an accounting, a case file, and any refund of unearned fees until after the disciplinary hearing. Bradley also failed for months to respond to Harrill's grievance and later failed to respond timely to a grievance filed by another client, Misty Keiser. He had two prior private reprimands involving similar neglect and failures to respond to grievances.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal complaint on January 17, 2014, asserting two counts. Bradley answered on February 6, 2014. After a hearing before a Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel on April 23, 2014, the panel found multiple violations and recommended a two-year suspension deferred subject to conditions. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma independently reviewed the record, rejected a deferred suspension as insufficient, imposed an eighteen-month suspension, and assessed costs.