State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Kelly John Barlean

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court disbarred Kelly John Barlean in a consolidated attorney-discipline proceeding based on domestic-violence convictions, threatening and harassing conduct, communications concerning a judge and opposing counsel, and failures to respond to an Oklahoma Bar Association grievance. The Court independently found clear and convincing evidence that Barlean was unfit to practice law and ordered him to pay disciplinary costs within ninety days.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over attorney-discipline proceedings and independently determines de novo whether the Oklahoma Bar Association proved misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's report is considered but is not binding.
2. A lawyer convicted of, or who tenders a guilty or nolo contendere plea pursuant to a deferred-sentence agreement for, a crime demonstrating unfitness to practice law is subject to discipline regardless of whether an appeal is pending; certified conviction records are conclusive evidence of commission of the crime and provide a sufficient basis for discipline, although not every conviction necessarily results in discipline.
3. Barlean's domestic violence, threats, harassment, threatening communications, false statements concerning a judge, ex parte communications intended to influence a judge, failure to respond to the grievance, and communications discrediting the legal profession violated the cited Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and demonstrated that he was unfit to practice law.
4. Disbarment was warranted by Barlean's persistent misconduct involving violence and threats, the resulting harm and fear, his poor judgment, and the absence of sufficient mitigation.
5. The Oklahoma Bar Association was entitled to recover $2,352.10 in costs, payable by Barlean within ninety days of the opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association proved by clear and convincing evidence that Barlean committed professional misconduct under the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
2. Whether Barlean's criminal convictions and deferred-sentence pleas established a sufficient basis for discipline under Rule 7.
3. What discipline was appropriate in light of Barlean's domestic violence convictions, threats, harassment, failure to respond to the grievance, and other misconduct.
4. Whether the Oklahoma Bar Association was entitled to recover its disciplinary proceeding costs.

Disposition

other