Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court considered a reciprocal attorney-discipline proceeding based on David William Knight's disbarment in Texas and his failure to respond to the Oklahoma proceedings. The court disbarred Knight from practicing law in Oklahoma effective when the opinion became final and assessed no costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the certified Texas disciplinary order and supporting documents constituted prima facie evidence of Knight's misconduct under Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Whether Knight's resignation from the Texas bar while disciplinary proceedings were pending and his failure to contest the allegations established an admission of the underlying misconduct.
- What discipline should be imposed in Oklahoma for Knight's reciprocal misconduct, considering the misconduct, prior discipline, and absence of mitigation.
Holdings
- Certified documents from the other jurisdiction's disciplinary proceeding, including the order canceling Knight's Texas license, constituted the charge and prima facie evidence that Knight committed the described acts. Because Knight failed to defend or submit contrary evidence, the allegations were sufficient to support discipline in Oklahoma.
- In a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has discretion to impose the same discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction or discipline of greater or lesser severity.
- Knight's professional misconduct, extensive prior disciplinary history, failure to notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of the Texas discipline, and failure to respond or present mitigation warranted disbarment in Oklahoma.
Key quotations
“We exercise the responsibility to decide whether attorney misconduct has occurred and what discipline is appropriate, not for the purpose of punishing the attorney, but to assess his or her continued fitness to practice law and to safeguard the interests of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” (¶6)
“Knight is hereby disbarred effective upon the date this opinion becomes final.” (¶11)
Factual background
Knight was licensed in Texas and Oklahoma and was disciplined in Texas after misconduct involving five client matters. The misconduct included neglecting matters, failing to communicate, failing to return unearned fees, practicing law while suspended, failing to notify clients of his suspension and office closure, and failing to respond to grievances. Knight did not notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of the Texas discipline and did not participate in the Oklahoma reciprocal-discipline proceeding. His prior Oklahoma disciplinary history included multiple suspensions and the striking of his name from the roll for nonpayment of dues.
Procedural history
Knight resigned from the Texas bar while disciplinary proceedings were pending, and the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, canceled his Texas license, prohibited him from practicing, and imposed restitution conditions. The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a notice of the Texas order in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. After notice and service, Knight filed no response or mitigating evidence. The Oklahoma Supreme Court imposed disbarment effective when the opinion became final.