In re Goforth

• Decision Date: 23 January 2019
• Docket Number: SCBD 6633
• Citation: 434 P.3d 944
• Parties: In the MATTER OF the REINSTATEMENT OF Carol Rose GOFORTH to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

434 P.3d 944

In the MATTER OF the REINSTATEMENT OF Carol Rose GOFORTH to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys

SCBD 6633

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

FILED January 23, 2019

Carol Rose Goforth, Petitioner/Pro Se.

Stephen L. Sullins, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.

COMBS, J.:

¶ 1 On April 4, 2018, the Petitioner, Carol Rose Goforth, filed her Petition for Reinstatement requesting she be readmitted as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 1-A (RGDP). The record reflects the Petitioner graduated from the University of Arkansas School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to practice law in Oklahoma on October 18, 1984. She resided in Tulsa, Oklahoma where she worked for the law firm Doerner, Stuart, Saunders, Daniel and Anderson from October 18, 1984, through May 1, 1989. On May 15, 1989, she moved to Newark, New Jersey to accept a full-time teaching position at Seton Hall School of Law. She remained there until the summer of 1993 when she moved to West Fork, Arkansas to accept a full-time teaching position at the University Of Arkansas School Of Law in Fayetteville. She is currently a University Professor and teaches a range of business law, and practical transactional skills classes with a focus on corporations, unincorporated entities, securities regulation and transactional practice skills. The record indicates she has not been licensed to practice law in any other state.

¶ 2 On July 19, 1990, Petitioner was suspended from membership in the OBA for failure to pay membership dues for the year 1990.¹ One year later, this Court ordered her name stricken from the OBA membership rolls.² After filing her petition the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) held a hearing pursuant to Rule 6, RGDP. The Petitioner testified she regretted letting her bar license lapse but her career has been focused solely on teaching and she was even discouraged from retaining her license.³ She explained the law school faculty was divided between the higher paid doctrinal course teachers and the licensed, sometimes adjunct teachers, who were regarded as clinical or practical teachers.⁴ She was encouraged not to be regarded as a clinical or practical teacher and therefore she let her license lapse.⁵ At the time, there was no benefit in keeping her law license and it appeared even detrimental to her career.⁶ She also testified that she relied upon the letter sent to her on September 12, 1991, from the OBA.⁷ The letter notified her that her name had been stricken from the roll of attorneys.⁸ The last paragraph of the letter also stated the letter may be disregarded if she had no intention to practice law in Oklahoma in the future.⁹

¶ 3 The Petitioner's educational philosophy has changed over the years.¹⁰ She now believes there is a real need to provide law students with transactional skills training. Her ultimate goal is to expand the legal education at the University of Arkansas School of Law. She intends to initiate a supervised law clinic for upper-level law students interested in working with entrepreneurial clients.¹¹ This will likely include accepting pro bono clients in the state of Arkansas.¹² She will need to be licensed in Arkansas in order to reach this goal.¹³ After reinstatement of her Oklahoma license she will pursue her Arkansas license through reciprocity.¹⁴ Her goal is not to practice law in Oklahoma nor will she practice law in Arkansas for profit.¹⁵ Any clients taken will be on a pro bono basis in an academic setting.¹⁶ Her desire for reinstatement lies purely with helping her students develop transactional skills to enhance their education.¹⁷

¶ 4 The PRT unanimously recommends the Petitioner be reinstated. It found by clear and convincing evidence the Petitioner had shown she possesses good moral character sufficient to be admitted to the OBA, she possesses competence in the learning of the law required for readmission, and she has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The PRT also recommends the Petitioner should pay all fees and expenses of the investigation, including the cost of the original and one copy of the transcript as well as requiring her to obtain twelve hours of continuing legal education and payment of her bar dues for the year in which she is reinstated. It did not recommend the Petitioner take and successfully pass the regular bar examination given by the Board of Bar Examiners of the OBA. The Respondent, OBA, waived the filing of its answer brief and recommended the adoption of the PRT's findings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 This Court has the non-delegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate both the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of Oklahoma practitioners of the law. In re Reinstatement of Kerr , 2015 OK 9, ¶ 6, 345 P.3d 1118. Our review of the record is made de novo, in which we conduct a non-deferential, full-scale examination of all relevant facts. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hulett, 2008 OK 38, ¶ 4, 183 P.3d 1014. In a proceeding involving no prior imposition of discipline for lawyer professional misconduct, the focus of our inquiry concerns 1) the present moral fitness of the applicant; 2) conduct subsequent to suspension as it relates to moral fitness and professional competence; 3) whether the attorney has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; and 4) whether the attorney has complied with the rule-mandated requirements for reinstatement. In re Reinstatement of Christopher , 2014 OK 73, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 1221. The PRT's recommendations concerning these matters, while entitled to great weight, are advisory in character and the ultimate decision rests with this Court. In re Reinstatement of Pate, 2008 OK 24, ¶ 3, 184 P.3d 528 ; In re Reinstatement of Floyd , 1989 OK 83, ¶ 3, 775 P.2d 815. Rule 11.4, RGDP, provides an applicant seeking reinstatement will be required to present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time. In addition, Rule 11.5, RGDP provides in pertinent part:

At the conclusion of the hearing held on the petition for reinstatement, the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal shall file a report with the Supreme Court, together with the transcript of the hearing. Said report shall contain specific findings upon each of the following:

....

(c) Whether or not the applicant possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in the State of Oklahoma, except that any applicant whose membership in the Association has been suspended or terminated for a period of five (5) years or longer, or who has been disbarred, shall be required to take and successfully pass the regular examination given by the Board of Bar Examiners of the Oklahoma Bar Association. Provided, however, before the applicant shall be required to take and pass the bar examination, he shall have a reasonable opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that, notwithstanding his long absence from the practice of law, he has continued to study and thus has kept himself informed as to current developments in the law sufficient to maintain his competency. If the Trial Panel finds that such evidence is insufficient to establish the applicant's competency and learning in the law, it must require the applicant to take and pass the regular bar examination before a finding as to his qualifications shall be made in his favor.

We have held this provision creates a rebuttable presumption that one who has been suspended for five years will not possess sufficient competency in the law to be reinstated, absent an extraordinary showing to that effect. In re Reinstatement of Farrant , 2004 OK 77, ¶ 7, 104 P.3d 567. Each application for reinstatement to the OBA must be considered on its own merits and will fail or succeed on the evidence presented and the circumstances of the attorney's case. In re Reinstatement of Kerr , 2015 OK 9, ¶ 19, 345 P.3d 1118.

ANALYSIS

I. Moral Fitness

¶ 6 Except for her suspension in 1990 for failure to pay dues, the record is silent as to any disciplinary actions taken against the Petitioner. Eight letters were admitted as evidence which strongly supported a finding that Petitioner possessed good moral character.¹⁸ These letters were written by various deans and professors of the universities where she has worked as well as members of the bar. Testimony at the hearing also supported Petitioner's good moral character.¹⁹ No contrary evidence was presented. The PRT found Petitioner had shown by clear and convincing evidence she possessed the good moral character to be readmitted to the OBA. After an examination of the record, we agree with this finding.

II. Professional Competence Sufficient for Reinstatement

¶ 7 Rule 11.5, RGDP, requires a petitioner for reinstatement to show they possess the competency and learning in the law required for admission. If they have been suspended or terminated for more than 5 years, there is a rebuttable presumption they will be required to retake the regular bar examination. In determining competency, our precedent has placed an emphasis on law-related work history following suspension. We have also considered other ways a petitioner has kept abreast of the law including the completion of continuing legal education courses and the reading of bar journals.

¶ 8 In In re Reinstatement of Bodnar , this Court noted some of our previous opinions had rejected a finding of competency when the petitioner's preparation had consisted mainly of completing only twelve to twenty-four hours of continuing legal education courses prior to petitioning for reinstatement. 2016 OK 12, ¶ 23, 367 P.3d 916. We held "if practicing attorneys must complete twelve hours a year, taking one class and reading the Oklahoma Bar Journal for three months is certainly insufficient to meet...