Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline on Richard M. Wintory based on his 90-day suspension in Arizona. The court found that Wintory misled defense counsel, his supervisors, co-counsel, and the trial court about communications with a confidential intermediary in a capital murder case, and failed to timely report the Arizona discipline.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the certified Arizona disciplinary adjudication and uncontroverted record established Wintory's professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether Wintory's misconduct, including misleading representations, false or misleading affidavits, communications with the confidential intermediary, and failure to timely report the Arizona discipline, warranted reciprocal discipline in Oklahoma.
- Whether a two-year-and-one-day suspension was the appropriate Oklahoma sanction.
Holdings
- Under Rule 7.7, the certified adjudication from the highest court of another state constitutes the charge and prima facie evidence that the attorney committed the acts described in it.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews reciprocal-discipline evidence de novo, determines whether misconduct is established by clear and convincing evidence, and has discretion to impose discipline equal to, greater than, or less than the discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction.
- Wintory's misconduct warranted suspension from the practice of law in Oklahoma for two years and one day.
- An attorney's failure to timely notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of discipline imposed in another jurisdiction may itself warrant professional discipline.
Key quotations
“THESE ACTIONS SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF A TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN OKLAHOMA.” (¶14)
“Such suspensions are tantamount to disbarment in that the suspended lawyer must follow the same procedures for readmittance as would a disbarred attorney.” (¶22)
Factual background
While serving as an Arizona prosecutor in a capital murder case, Wintory had multiple conversations with a confidential intermediary appointed to assist the defense in developing mitigating evidence. He misled the defense, his supervisor, his co-counsel, and the trial court about the number and nature of those conversations, and false or misleading affidavits and court filings resulted. He also failed to timely notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of the Arizona discipline and did not respond to the Oklahoma reciprocal-discipline proceeding.
Procedural history
The Arizona Supreme Court imposed a ninety-day suspension and costs on Wintory based on misconduct arising from his conduct as a prosecutor in a capital murder case. The Oklahoma Bar Association initiated reciprocal-discipline proceedings under Rule 7.7 after Wintory failed to timely report the Arizona discipline. Wintory did not respond or contest the proceeding, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review and imposed a two-year-and-one-day suspension.