Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a summary disciplinary proceeding arising from Ian Michael Shahan's guilty and no-contest pleas to misdemeanor public intoxication, driving under the influence, and leaving the scene of a collision involving property damage. The Court lifted his interim suspension, imposed a public censure, recognized that his one-year deferred suspension and probation had been satisfied, and ordered him to pay $2,546.60 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Shahan's guilty and no-contest pleas to misdemeanor alcohol-related offenses demonstrated unfitness to practice law and warranted professional discipline.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of the offenses, Shahan's lack of prior disciplinary history, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, character evidence, and absence of client harm.
- Whether the Supreme Court was bound by the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommended sanction.
Holdings
- Shahan's criminal pleas and resulting misconduct constituted clear and convincing evidence of conduct reflecting adversely on the legal profession and provided a basis for discipline.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommended discipline was not binding on the Supreme Court.
- Public censure, rather than the recommended six-month suspension, was the appropriate discipline; the interim suspension was lifted, the one-year probationary period was deemed satisfied, and Shahan was ordered to pay $2,546.60 in costs.
Key quotations
“This Court reviews all proceedings before the Trial Panel, examining the record and assessing the weight and credibility of the evidence, de novo.” (¶ 14)
“However, a pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.” (¶ 16)
“Considering the lesser forms of discipline bestowed in earlier cases before this Court involving alcohol-related incidents, many with more repetitive incidents, we conclude that the Trial Panel's recommended discipline of a six month suspension is too punitive herein.” (¶ 28)
Factual background
Shahan, an Oklahoma lawyer admitted in 2009, was arrested for public intoxication in November 2014 and for misdemeanor DUI and leaving the scene of a collision involving property damage in February 2015. He pleaded guilty to public intoxication and DUI and no contest to leaving the scene; the DUI incident involved a blood-alcohol level of .22 after he crashed into a utility pole. He self-reported the arrests, acknowledged a problem with alcohol, pursued treatment and sobriety measures, cooperated with the Bar investigation, and had no clients who were harmed or placed at risk.
Procedural history
Shahan self-reported his arrests to the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Oklahoma Supreme Court entered an immediate interim suspension on February 1, 2016, later granted Shahan's request for a mitigation hearing, and referred the matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. The Trial Panel recommended a six-month suspension retroactive to February 1, 2016, plus a deferred one-year suspension with conditions. The Supreme Court rejected the recommended six-month suspension as too punitive, lifted the interim suspension, imposed public censure, recognized that the one-year probationary period had been satisfied, and assessed costs.