Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed professional disciplinary proceedings against James M. Demopolos following his guilty pleas to obstructing a public officer, threatening violence, and domestic abuse assault and battery. The Court imposed a one-year suspension, followed by an additional one-year deferred suspension subject to specified conditions, and ordered payment of costs. The opinion also established procedures for implementing the deferred suspension if its conditions were violated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Respondent's guilty plea to a violent act of domestic abuse demonstrated unfitness to practice law and constituted professional misconduct warranting discipline.
- What professional discipline was appropriate in light of Respondent's criminal conduct, mitigation evidence, treatment, sobriety, and criminal supervision.
- What procedure and due-process protections govern implementation of the deferred professional suspension if Respondent violates a condition of deferral.
- Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Respondent.
Holdings
- A lawyer's guilty plea or criminal conviction for a violent act of domestic abuse demonstrates unfitness to practice law and violates Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), warranting professional discipline.
- The Supreme Court, not the Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel, independently determines the facts and the appropriate level of discipline in an Oklahoma lawyer disciplinary proceeding.
- Respondent is suspended from practicing law for one year commencing February 2, 2015, with an additional one-year suspension deferred until February 3, 2017, subject to specified conditions relating to criminal supervision, abstinence, treatment, monitoring, and compliance with professional rules.
- If Respondent violates a condition of the deferred suspension, the General Counsel must notify the Court, request implementation, and provide notice to Respondent; the Court must make the factual determination of violation and provide Respondent an opportunity to object before making the deferred suspension final.
- Respondent must pay $1,251.80 in costs within ninety days after the opinion becomes final.
Key quotations
“Protecting the public and purification of the Bar are the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings rather than punishment of the offending attorney.” (¶ 5)
“Recommendations of a PRT trial panel are advisory and not binding on this Court.” (¶ 26)
“This Court has a non-delegable role as a finder of facts that a respondent's conduct warrants the immediate implementation of a deferred suspension, i.e., a violation has actually occurred and the suspension should thus be implemented.” (¶ 37)
Factual background
Respondent pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors arising from an alcohol-related domestic incident: obstructing a public officer, threatening violence against his wife, and domestic abuse assault and battery. Police observed Respondent's intoxication, heard threats against his wife, observed a bruise, and obtained his admission that he had struck her. Respondent had a history of alcohol and substance abuse but presented mitigating evidence concerning treatment, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and Lawyers Helping Lawyers, compliance with drug testing, lack of prior professional discipline, and reconciliation with his wife.
Procedural history
Respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County to obstructing a public officer, threatening an act of violence involving serious bodily harm or death, and domestic abuse assault and battery. The Supreme Court entered an interim suspension effective February 2, 2015. A Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel recommended a six-month suspension and a deferred suspension of two years and one day, while the Bar sought a two-year suspension. The Supreme Court imposed a one-year suspension commencing on the interim-suspension date, an additional one-year deferred suspension subject to conditions, and costs.