State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Faulk

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed 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 assault and battery. The Court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, suspended Faulk for two years effective September 28, 2020, and ordered him to pay $2,749.85 in costs. A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part regarding the appropriate discipline.

Holdings

1. Police investigative reports do not fall within the public-record hearsay exception under 12 O.S. § 2803(8)(a), and the police reports in Exhibits 2 and 4 should not be considered absent a compelling reason for admission.
2. Faulk's convictions for domestic violence constituted conclusive evidence of the crimes and clearly demonstrated his unfitness to practice law, violating Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. Faulk engaged in acts contrary to prescribed standards of conduct that brought discredit upon the legal profession, violating Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
4. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, measured from September 28, 2020, the date of Faulk's interim suspension, was the appropriate discipline.
5. Faulk was required to pay $2,749.85 in disciplinary costs within ninety days after the opinion became final.

Questions Presented

1. Whether police reports admitted as exhibits in the disciplinary proceeding contained inadmissible hearsay and should be considered.
2. Whether Faulk's criminal convictions for domestic violence constituted conclusive evidence of the underlying crimes and demonstrated unfitness to practice law under Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.
3. Whether Faulk's conduct violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by bringing discredit upon the legal profession.
4. What discipline was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, and discipline imposed in comparable cases.
5. Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Faulk.

Disposition

other