Jensen v. Poindexter

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification of an attorney representing a father in a paternity and child-custody proceeding. The attorney failed to report renewed suspected child abuse, conducted an interview of the minor child without the legal parent's consent, and submitted affidavits concerning the child's allegations and credibility. The court held that these actions likely contaminated the fact-finding process and threatened the integrity of the judicial process, warranting disqualification from all aspects of the proceeding.

Holdings

1. A district court may disqualify counsel when the attorney's conduct is likely to cause real harm to the integrity of the judicial process. The district court did not err in disqualifying Jensen's attorney because the attorney's private interview of the child, failure to report suspected abuse, credibility affidavit, and resulting relationship with the child likely contaminated the fact-finding process and compromised the mother's right to a fair proceeding.
2. When counsel's conduct has so seriously tainted the fact-finding process and created a relationship of undue influence with a child witness that continued participation threatens future proceedings, counsel may be disqualified from all aspects of the underlying case, not merely from acting as trial advocate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly disqualified opposing counsel when counsel interviewed a minor child without the legal parent's consent, failed to report suspected abuse as required by statute, submitted affidavits concerning the child's credibility, and thereby likely compromised the opposing parent's right to a fair proceeding.
2. Whether the attorney's conduct warranted disqualification from all aspects of the underlying paternity and custody proceeding rather than only from acting as an advocate at trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded