State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Faulk

2021 OK 46, 496 P.3d 612 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · September 28, 2021 · No. SCBD-6974

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a bar disciplinary proceeding arising from Robert R. Faulk’s guilty pleas to felony domestic abuse with a prior pattern of physical abuse and misdemeanor domestic abuse. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the convictions violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Faulk was suspended from practicing law for two years beginning September 28, 2020, and ordered to pay $2,749.85 in costs.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Rowe, J.; Kane, V.C.J.; Kauger, J.; Winchester, J.; Edmondson, J.; Gurich, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
September 28, 2021
Docket number
SCBD-6974
Procedural posture
Summary attorney-disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Oklahoma Bar Association after Respondent pleaded guilty to felony domestic abuse with a prior pattern of physical abuse and misdemeanor domestic abuse assault and battery. The Supreme Court reviewed the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommended discipline de novo.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviews the evidence de novo and determines whether misconduct has been established by clear and convincing evidence.
Precedential value
Published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion; precedential attorney-discipline decision.
Parties
State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Robert R. Faulk
Disposition
other

Topics

evidencehearsayremedies

Practice areas

Legal ethics and professional responsibilityAttorney disciplineEvidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether police reports admitted as exhibits were admissible hearsay in the disciplinary proceeding.
  2. Whether Faulk's criminal convictions for domestic violence established violations of Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
  3. What discipline was appropriate in light of the misconduct, aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, and comparable disciplinary cases.
  4. Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Faulk.

Holdings

  1. Police reports in Exhibits 2 and 4 should not have been admitted because investigative reports by police and other law-enforcement personnel are expressly excluded from the applicable public-records hearsay exception, absent a compelling reason for admission.
  2. Faulk's convictions for acts of domestic violence constituted conclusive evidence of the underlying crimes and clearly demonstrated his unfitness to practice law, violating Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
  3. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, retroactive to September 28, 2020, was the appropriate discipline for Faulk's domestic-violence misconduct, considering the seriousness and pattern of violent and alcohol-related conduct, mitigation, deterrence, and protection of the public and legal profession.
  4. Faulk must pay $2,749.85 in disciplinary costs within ninety days after the opinion becomes final.

Key quotations

We hold there is clear and convincing evidence that the totality of Respondent's conduct warrants a two-year suspension from the date of Respondent's interim suspension, September 28, 2020. (¶ 0)
It is incumbent on this Court to demonstrate to the public and members of the Bar that we consider domestic abuse to be a serious breach of a lawyer's ethical duty--a breach that will not be tolerated. (¶ 29)

Factual background

Faulk pleaded guilty to felony domestic abuse with a prior pattern of physical abuse and misdemeanor domestic abuse assault and battery arising from a May 2019 incident involving his girlfriend. The incident involved intoxication, physical violence, threats, and conduct that caused law enforcement to enter Faulk's home and find the victim hiding naked and sobbing. The record also contained evidence of prior domestic-violence incidents and alcohol-related conduct, along with mitigating evidence concerning treatment, recovery efforts, and character.

Procedural history

The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a notice of Respondent's criminal convictions, and the Supreme Court entered an immediate interim suspension effective September 28, 2020. Respondent waived a hearing on the interim suspension but requested a limited mitigation hearing. After the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a one-year suspension with an additional one-year deferred suspension, the Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension and assessed costs of $2,749.85.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…