State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Fields

529 P.3d 210 (Okla. 2023) · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · May 9, 2023 · No. SCBD-6906

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court imposed additional discipline on Jason Matthew Fields for failing to comply with a prior suspension order, including failing to timely repay attorney's fees and disciplinary costs and failing to respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Court. The Court held that Fields violated Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d), as well as Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings 1.3 and 9.1. Fields was suspended for one year and one day, required to seek reinstatement, and ordered to pay $804.34 in costs.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the Court
Kane, C.J.; Rowe, V.C.J.; Kauger, J.; Winchester, J.; Edmondson, J.; Gurich, J.; Kuehn, J.; Combs, J.; Darby, J.
Jurisdiction
Oklahoma
Decision date
May 9, 2023
Docket number
SCBD-6906
Procedural posture
Attorney disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Oklahoma Bar Association after Respondent failed to comply with a prior suspension order and failed to participate in the resulting disciplinary proceedings.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court exercises exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline and reviews the evidence de novo to determine whether misconduct was proved by clear and convincing evidence. Trial Panel recommendations are neither binding nor persuasive.
Precedential value
published Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Jason Matthew Fields
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureprobate procedureprobatecivil procedure

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibilityprobate-related attorney fees

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Fields violated the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings by failing to comply with the requirements applicable to suspended attorneys.
  2. Whether Fields committed professional misconduct by failing to respond to lawful demands from the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Supreme Court and by failing to participate in the disciplinary proceedings.
  3. Whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established that Fields engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or held himself out as authorized to practice law in violation of Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(b)(2).
  4. What additional discipline was appropriate for Fields's misconduct.

Holdings

  1. Fields violated RGDP Rule 9.1 by failing to timely notify his client of his suspension and the need for substitute counsel, file a formal withdrawal, and file the required compliance affidavit with the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Supreme Court.
  2. Fields's repeated failures to respond to lawful demands from the Court and the Oklahoma Bar Association, comply with the show-cause order, and participate in the disciplinary process violated ORPC Rules 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
  3. The evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that Fields violated ORPC Rule 5.5(b)(2) by holding himself out as authorized to practice law when he attended the hearing on his withdrawal application.
  4. The totality of Fields's misconduct warranted an additional suspension of one year and one day, resulting in a total suspension of two years and one day, with reinstatement required before he may practice law again.

Key quotations

The Trial Panel's recommendations are neither binding nor persuasive. (¶11)
We take a particularly dim view of disobedience to court orders. The integrity of the judicial system demands that lawyers, who are officers of the court, respect its authority. (¶18)
Public confidence in the judicial system demands that the court hold lawyers accountable for disobedience to its orders. (¶18)
And such disregard warrants additional discipline. (¶20)

Factual background

Fields had previously been suspended for one year and ordered to repay probate-related attorney fees and pay disciplinary costs within 90 days. He failed to timely repay the Estate, failed to timely pay the costs, failed to respond to repeated inquiries from the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Court's show-cause order, and failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. He eventually paid the costs and repaid the Estate, but both payments were substantially late.

Procedural history

The Professional Responsibility Tribunal's Trial Panel found that Fields violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension. The Oklahoma Supreme Court independently reviewed the record de novo and imposed an additional one-year-and-one-day suspension, requiring reinstatement proceedings and payment of costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…