State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Knight

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court imposed a two-year-and-one-day suspension on David William Knight for practicing law while his Oklahoma license was suspended, failing to notify clients and courts of his suspension, and failing to cooperate fully with the Oklahoma Bar Association's investigation. The Court also assessed $1,854.96 in disciplinary costs, while declining to find one alleged Rule 8.4 violation concerning the untimely withdrawal from criminal matters.

Holdings

1. Knight's post-suspension appearances and representation in Oklahoma criminal matters constituted unauthorized practice of law and violated the applicable Oklahoma disciplinary rules, including ORPC Rule 5.5.
2. Knight violated Rule 9.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by failing to notify clients of his suspension, formally withdraw from pending proceedings, and file the required compliance affidavit.
3. Knight violated the disciplinary rules and ORPC Rule 8.1(b) by failing to provide a timely and adequate response to the Bar's grievance investigation and subpoena.
4. When a respondent fails to answer a disciplinary complaint, the charges are deemed admitted under Rule 6.4, but the Court must still consider the record and may limit or reject an admission when public interests or the evidentiary record do not support the alleged violation.
5. The Court declined to accept Knight's Rule 6.4 admission insofar as it alleged that his failure to withdraw timely and his misrepresentation of his license status violated ORPC Rule 8.4, because the evidence did not establish the required bad or evil motive.
6. Knight's license to practice law was suspended for two years and one day, effective when the opinion became final, and he was ordered to pay $1,854.96 in costs within ninety days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Knight committed professional misconduct by practicing law in Oklahoma while his license was suspended.
2. Whether Knight violated the rules governing suspended lawyers by failing to notify clients, withdraw from pending proceedings, and file the required affidavit.
3. Whether Knight violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary rules by failing to respond to the Bar's investigation and complaint.
4. Whether the Rule 6.4 admission established a violation of Rule 8.4 based on Knight's untimely withdrawal and alleged misrepresentation of his license status.
5. What discipline and costs should be imposed for the established misconduct.

Disposition

other