State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Friesen

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed attorney-discipline proceedings against Larry Douglas Friesen arising from his representation of Alma and Oscar Nevarez. The Court found clear and convincing violations involving safekeeping client funds, diligence, communication, competence, and unreasonable fees, and ordered Friesen disbarred, his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, compliance with Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and payment of costs.

Holdings

1. An attorney violates Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 by transferring an advance fee to an operating account before the fee is earned and by failing to keep disputed funds separate, provide a prompt accounting, and return funds to which the client is entitled.
2. An attorney violates Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to act diligently and promptly, keep clients reasonably informed, explain the representation sufficiently for informed decisions, and respond to reasonable requests for information.
3. A lawyer violates Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 by charging or retaining a fee that is unreasonable or obviously disproportionate to the services rendered, including where promised services are not diligently or timely performed.
4. Clear and convincing evidence established that Friesen violated Rule 1.1 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
5. Disbarment, striking Friesen's name from the roll of attorneys, compliance with Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and payment of disciplinary costs were warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Friesen violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15 by treating an advance fee as earned immediately, failing to safeguard disputed client funds, and failing to provide an accounting or promptly return funds.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence established violations of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 through lack of diligence, inadequate communication, and failure to respond to reasonable requests for information.
3. Whether Friesen violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 by charging and retaining an unreasonable fee that was disproportionate to the services rendered.
4. Whether Friesen violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings through incompetent representation and conduct bringing discredit upon the legal profession.
5. What discipline was warranted in light of the misconduct, prior discipline, mitigating circumstances, and purposes of attorney discipline.

Disposition

other