Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews a lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving John Thomas Green. The Court finds clear and convincing evidence that Green violated professional conduct rules concerning competence, diligence, communication, misconduct, and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities. The Court orders a 90-day suspension of his law license and payment of the proceeding's costs, rather than the disbarment or two-year-and-one-day suspension sought or recommended.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the record was sufficiently complete to permit meaningful de novo review of the alleged misconduct and its disposition.
- Whether Green's violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings warranted suspension for two years and one day, disbarment, or a lesser sanction.
- Whether Green's failure to respond to lawful requests for information from the Oklahoma Bar Association established a violation of ORPC Rule 8.1(b).
Holdings
- The record was complete and sufficient for the Supreme Court to independently review the alleged misconduct and determine the appropriate discipline.
- Clear and convincing evidence established that Green violated ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 8.4(a), as well as Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Green's repeated failures to respond to lawful requests for information from the Bar's investigator established a clear and convincing violation of ORPC Rule 8.1(b).
- A ninety-day suspension and assessment of $1,881.70 in costs, rather than disbarment or a two-years-and-one-day suspension, was the appropriate discipline.
Key quotations
“The Court's review is de novo and takes into consideration all relevant facts in determining whether discipline is merited and what measures, if any, should be imposed for the misconduct.” (¶ 5)
“The well-established reason behind the "disciplinary process, including the imposition of a sanction, is designed not to punish the delinquent lawyer, but to safeguard the interests of the public, those of the judiciary and of the legal profession."” (¶ 20)
“RESPONDENT IS ORDERED DISCIPLINED (1) BY SUSPENSION OF HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS AND (2) BY IMPOSITION OF COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,881.70.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
Green represented a client in a post-divorce custody matter but failed to file an entry of appearance and mistakenly believed that a continuance had been granted. Neither Green nor the client appeared at the scheduled hearing, resulting in a default judgment against the client, who later retained new counsel and obtained vacation of the judgment. Green also repeatedly failed to cooperate with the Bar's investigation, diversion efforts, requests for information, and disciplinary proceedings, although he eventually responded to the initial grievance, appeared for a deposition, and filed a belated answer.
Procedural history
After a client grievance, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal disciplinary complaint alleging violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Green largely failed to respond, did not appear at the Professional Responsibility Tribunal hearing, and did not present evidence. The Tribunal deemed the allegations admitted, found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, and recommended a two-years-and-one-day suspension. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted a de novo review, rejected the recommended sanction as excessive, and imposed a ninety-day suspension and costs.