Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed a bar disciplinary proceeding against Robert Carlyle Scott involving neglect of clients, inadequate communication, failure to account for client funds, and failure to respond to disciplinary authorities. The Court determined that the misconduct was established by clear and convincing evidence, disbarred Scott, and ordered him to pay $1,488.03 in costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association provided Respondent sufficient notice of the disciplinary complaint, Trial Panel appointment, and hearing to permit the Supreme Court to proceed despite his nonappearance.
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Whether Respondent's total misconduct warranted disbarment rather than the Trial Panel's recommended suspension.
- Whether the costs of the disciplinary proceeding should be assessed against Respondent.
Holdings
- The Oklahoma Bar Association satisfied its obligations to notify Respondent of the complaint, the appointment of the Trial Panel, and the hearing, so the Court could proceed despite Respondent's failure to answer or appear.
- Clear and convincing evidence established that Respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(a) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
- Disbarment was the appropriate discipline for Respondent's combined misconduct and complete failure to participate in the disciplinary process.
- Respondent must pay $1,488.03 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 disbarment.” (¶ 0)
“We review the evidence de novo to determine whether the allegations of misconduct have been established by clear and convincing evidence.” (¶ 7)
“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.” (¶ 8)
Factual background
Respondent accepted $5,000 retainers from two clients for legal assistance with medical-marijuana businesses. He failed to diligently represent them, stopped communicating, failed to account for or return any unused retainer funds, and abandoned their matters. He also failed to respond to repeated demands from the Oklahoma Bar Association for information concerning the clients' grievances and did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
Procedural history
The Bar filed a formal complaint on March 15, 2021, and attempted notice by certified mail and personal service. After Respondent failed to answer or appear, the Trial Panel deemed the allegations admitted, conducted a hearing, found multiple violations, and recommended a two-years-and-one-day suspension. The Supreme Court concluded that notice requirements were satisfied, reviewed the evidence de novo, found additional misconduct under Rule 1.15(d), and disbarred Respondent while assessing costs.