Harvison v. Okla. Bar Ass'n
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | SCBD-7166 |
| Citation | 2022 OK 36 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Reinstatement of: Byron E. Harvison, to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys, Petitioner, v. Oklahoma Bar Association, Respondent. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY REINSTATEMENTREINSTATEMENT GRANTED
Byron E. Harvison, pro se, Park Hill, Oklahoma
Stephen Sullins, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
¶ 0 Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his voluntary resignation from the roll of attorneys in 2016. Petitioner was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 2008. The following year, he moved to another state to serve as an active duty officer with the United States Army Judge Advocate Corps (JAG). Petitioner's Oklahoma license served as his required state licensure from 2009 through 2015, the year he was admitted to practice in Utah where he resided. In 2016 Petitioner submitted his voluntary resignation to the OBA for several reasons, he no longer needed to rely on his Oklahoma licensure to serve in JAG, he had not resided in Oklahoma since 2009 and he had no plans to return to this state to practice law. At the time of his resignation, Petitioner was in good standing, he was not under investigation by the OBA for any ethical violation, and he had never been disciplined or disbarred by this Court. Petitioner has recently retired from the military and has relocated to Oklahoma where he desires to resume the practice of law in this state.
¶1 Petitioner, Byron E. Harvison, seeks reinstatement of his Oklahoma bar license after he submitted his voluntary resignation to the OBA in 2016, the year after he became licensed to practice law in a different state. Petitioner was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar on September 25, 2008. The following year he left Oklahoma and moved to another state to serve as an active-duty officer with the United States Army Judge Advocate General (JAG). From 2009 through 2015 Petitioner relied on his Oklahoma bar license to satisfy the JAG requirement to hold a state license to practice law. In May, 2015, Petitioner also obtained his license to practice law in Utah, the state where he was stationed. In 2016, Petitioner was still employed with JAG and he had no plans to leave the military or to return to civilian life in Oklahoma and practice law. For personal reasons, he decided his Oklahoma bar license was unnecessary and he submitted his voluntary resignation to the OBA on April 25, 2016. Because his resignation was submitted after February 15, 2016, he incurred OBA dues for 2016. In 2021, Petitioner decided to retire and leave his employment with JAG, and to return to Oklahoma with his family where he intends to practice law.
¶2 Harvison filed his Petition for Reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar on November 3, 2021 pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, Ch. 1, App. 1A (RGDP). The OBA, through its Office of General Counsel, investigated the matter and recommended that the petition be granted. A trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) conducted a hearing on January 27, 2022. Petitioner presented seven different witnesses to testify regarding his character, activities since resignation, competency in the law, and to establish that Petitioner had not engaged in the practice of law in Oklahoma after his resignation. Petitioner presented affidavits from local court clerks attesting that he has not practiced law in Oklahoma during the relevant time period of his resignation.
¶3 The OBA investigator conducted a thorough investigation of Petitioner and found no evidence of any criminal history, no tax problems at the state or federal level, no outstanding litigation matters and no evidence of any bankruptcies relating to Petitioner. There was no evidence of any prior OBA disciplinary matters involving Petitioner including no evidence he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The investigation did reveal that Petitioner had an outstanding balance with the OBA in the amount of $375.00 for his 2016 annual dues plus a late fee which had become due and payable prior to his resignation. Petitioner paid this balance in full on December 8, 2021; there are no further outstanding fees owed to the OBA.
¶4 The witnesses who testified reflected that during Petitioner's more than eleven year service with JAG, he was respected for his ethics, sound legal advice and counsel on highly varied matters. He advanced within JAG attaining the rank of Lt. Colonel and serving as General Counsel for the Utah National Guard. A witness from the Utah National Guard testified that Petitioner had attained the highest security clearance from that division. To obtain this clearance, a thorough investigation is done with a review of military records, financial records and the entire background. Petitioner demonstrated the highest ethics and professional behavior required for this level of clearance. The witness noted that Petitioner was in a very small percentage of the overall military force to satisfy these stringent requirements. Other witnesses testified about the highly complex legal issues that arose in Petitioner's service with JAG and how he consistently gained the regard of his fellow attorneys as well as the respect and cooperation of many higher ranking officers due to his sound advice and counsel. Petitioner consistently attended conferences to remain current in the law. He met all continuing education requirements for Oklahoma licensure until his 2016 resignation. Since 2015, he has met all requirements for licensure as an attorney in Utah.
¶5 The PRT filed its report with this Court on March 23, 2022 unanimously finding that Petitioner established all requirements for reinstatement by clear and convincing evidence and recommended reinstatement to the OBA and the roll of attorneys. Petitioner and the OBA filed separate pleadings waiving the right to submit briefs. This matter is considered based on the evidence in the record including the report of the PRT.
¶6 We find the record establishes the following by clear and convincing evidence:
To continue reading
Request your trial