Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly censured Tara K. Jack for failing to supervise nonlawyer employees and knowingly allowing five unlicensed individuals in the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 5.3(b), 5.3(c), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d), as well as Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Jack was also ordered to pay $4,801.58 in disciplinary costs within 90 days of the opinion’s effective date.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Jack violated Rule 5.3(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyer employees under her direct supervision complied with her professional obligations.
- Whether Jack violated Rule 5.3(c) by directing or ratifying, or knowingly failing to prevent or remedy, the unauthorized practice of law by employees under her supervision.
- Whether Jack violated Rules 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly assisting unauthorized practice and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Whether Jack violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by engaging in conduct contrary to prescribed standards that brought discredit upon the legal profession.
- What discipline was appropriate in light of the misconduct, mitigating circumstances, and the purposes of attorney discipline.
Holdings
- Jack violated Rule 5.3(b) by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer employees under her direct supervision acted consistently with her professional obligations and by facilitating their unauthorized practice of law.
- Jack violated Rule 5.3(c) by directing or ratifying the employees' misconduct and by knowing of the misconduct while failing to stop it or take remedial action.
- Jack violated Rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(a) by knowingly assisting or inducing the unauthorized practice of law by unlicensed employees.
- Jack violated Rule 8.4(d) because her failure to supervise and her allowance of unlicensed prosecution were complicit in a pattern of dishonesty and misrepresentation to courts, defendants, and opposing counsel and placed defendants' constitutional rights in jeopardy.
- Jack violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by engaging in acts contrary to prescribed standards of conduct that brought discredit upon the legal profession.
- Public censure was the appropriate discipline, and Jack was required to pay $4,801.58 in costs within ninety days after the opinion became final.
Key quotations
“We review the evidence de novo to determine whether the allegations of misconduct have been established by clear and convincing evidence.” (¶4)
“Our goals in disciplinary proceedings are to protect the interests of the public and to preserve the integrity of the courts and the legal profession, not to punish attorneys.” (¶5)
“Accordingly, we find that public censure is appropriate to protect the public interest and preserve the integrity of the legal profession.” (¶32)
Factual background
Tara K. Jack was an Assistant District Attorney and Director of the Traffic and Misdemeanor Division of the Tulsa County District Attorney's Office, with direct supervisory authority over lawyers and nonlawyer employees. Five individuals under her supervision engaged in prosecutorial activities in Oklahoma courts before obtaining an Oklahoma license or other authorization to practice law. Jack assigned their casework and assisted and supervised them, and stipulated that she knew they were practicing law while unlicensed. The conduct included court appearances, plea negotiations, motion arguments, jury trials, and a nonjury trial.
Procedural history
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed its formal complaint on January 23, 2020. After an answer and a March 11, 2020 hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal reported on June 5, 2020, that the violations had been proven by clear and convincing evidence and recommended public censure. The Supreme Court conducted de novo review and imposed public censure and costs.