Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed an attorney-discipline proceeding arising from Kendra D. Coleman's Alford plea to misdemeanor failure to file a tax return. The Court determined that the conduct demonstrated unfitness to practice law and imposed a public reprimand, assessing $2,157.95 in proceeding costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Coleman's misdemeanor failure to file a state income tax return demonstrated unfitness to practice law under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b).
- What discipline was appropriate for the misconduct.
- Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Coleman.
Holdings
- A violation of 68 O.S. 2011, § 240(a), consisting of failure to file a required state income tax return, reflects adversely on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer and demonstrates unfitness to practice law under the disciplinary rules.
- A public reprimand is the appropriate discipline for Coleman's failure to file a state income tax return, and she must pay the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
Key quotations
“The Supreme Court of Oklahoma possesses original, exclusive, and nondelegable jurisdiction to control and regulate the practice of law, licensing, ethics, and discipline of attorneys.” (¶ 1)
“Appropriate discipline is that which (1) is "consistent with the discipline imposed upon other lawyers who have committed similar acts of professional misconduct and (2) avoids the vice of visiting disparate treatment of an offending lawyer."” (¶ 12)
“RESPONDENT PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED; COSTS ASSESSED.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Coleman was charged with intentional failure to file a state income tax return and later entered an Alford plea to one misdemeanor count of failure to file a tax return under 68 O.S. 2011, § 240(a). She received a deferred sentence, later completed its terms, and the criminal case was dismissed and expunged. The disciplinary tribunal found that her accounting and legal background gave her heightened knowledge of her tax-filing obligations, that she failed to respond when the person she hired sought information needed to file the return, and that she had not fully extinguished a substantial joint state tax liability.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a notice of criminal conviction under Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings 7.1 and 7.2. Coleman received a hearing before a Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel limited to mitigation and appropriate discipline. The trial panel and the Bar recommended a public reprimand; after de novo review, the Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand and assessed costs.