Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Richard E. Stout for sexual communications with and sexual relations involving female clients. The court found violations of Rules 1.7, 1.8(j), and 8.4 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, suspending Stout from practicing law for three months, imposing conditions, and ordering him to pay $1,579.51 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Stout violated Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, 1.8(j), and 8.4(a), and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of Stout's misconduct, mitigation, remorse, treatment, and proposed practice restrictions.
Holdings
- Stout's sexual communications and advances toward clients reflected a personal interest that created a concurrent conflict of interest and violated Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Stout violated Rule 1.8(j) by having sexual relations with a client when no consensual sexual relationship existed before the attorney-client relationship and the conduct resulted in a Rule 1.7(a)(2) conflict.
- Stout's conduct violated Rule 8.4(a) because it constituted violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Stout's conduct violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings because it was contrary to prescribed standards of conduct and would reasonably bring discredit upon the legal profession.
- A three-month suspension from the practice of law, subject to specified practice, treatment, and monitoring conditions, plus payment of costs, was appropriate discipline.
Key quotations
“This Court will conduct a de novo review of the record and decide whether misconduct has occurred and the appropriate discipline.” (¶12)
“the principal objectives of a disciplinary proceeding are to protect the public and purify the Bar, not to punish the lawyer.” (¶21)
“Mr. Stout is suspended from the practice of law for three months, ordered to pay costs in the amount of $1,579.51” (¶25)
Factual background
Richard E. Stout, an Oklahoma attorney, engaged in sexually suggestive communications and unwanted sexual advances toward two female clients during their representations. He also had sexual relations with another client during an attorney-client relationship, after she sought representation in a desperate financial situation. Stout admitted the misconduct, voluntarily disclosed the third incident to the Bar, sought inpatient treatment for sexual addiction, continued follow-up care, and expressed remorse.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a disciplinary complaint against Richard E. Stout. After a hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and recommended a three-month suspension, public censure, and costs. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma conducted a de novo review and imposed a three-month suspension, conditions on Stout's practice, and costs.