In re Reinstatement of Meek, SCBD No. 4844.

• Decision Date: 14 February 2006
• Docket Number: SCBD No. 4844.
• Citation: 130 P.3d 255,2006 OK 14
• Parties: In the Matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF Elaine Ann MEEK, to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

130 P.3d 255

2006 OK 14

In the Matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF Elaine Ann MEEK, to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys.

SCBD No. 4844.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

February 14, 2006.

Petition for Reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

¶ 0 Petitioner, Elaine Ann Meek, sought reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association following her disbarment. After hearing, the panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended denial of her petition. After our de novo review, we find petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence sufficient to warrant her reinstatement and we order costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,174.07 to be paid within ninety days from the date this opinion becomes final.

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT DENIED. COSTS IMPOSED.

Elaine Meek, Tulsa, OK, Pro Se.

Mike Speegle, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, for Respondent.

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT DENIED. COSTS IMPOSED.

EDMONDSON, J.

¶ 1 Petitioner, Elaine Meek, seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after being disbarred in 1996. This is her first attempt at reinstatement. The Bar Association opposed her effort and after hearing held in June 2005, the trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal unanimously recommended that her petition should be denied. Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence, we agree with the panel and we deny Ms. Meek's reinstatement.

¶ 2 The panel's findings of fact included the following regarding Ms. Meek: (1) at the time of her disbarment she was delinquent in payment of $450.00 of bar dues which remained unpaid; (2) following disbarment she did not comply with the Rule 9.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App., requiring her to notify her clients and to furnish proof of compliance; (3) since disbarment, she had received only six hours of CLE; (4) there was no evidence she had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law since disbarment; (5) her testimony regarding the circumstances of the original offense and her justifications for failing to respond to the grievance process and pay costs imposed and delinquent dues were unbelievable, inconsistent, contradictory and not worthy of belief.

¶ 3 In reinstatement proceedings, as in all other matters involving the disciplining and licensing of attorneys, we do not sit in review of the trial panel's recommendations, but exercise our exclusive original jurisdiction and apply a de novo standard of review in reaching our decision. Matter of the Reinstatement of Kamins, 1988 OK 32, 752 P.2d 1125. No presumption of correctness attaches to the trial panel's findings and conclusions, and its recommendations to this Court are merely advisory in nature. Matter of the Reinstatement of Pierce, 1996 OK 65, 919 P.2d 422; Matter of Reinstatement of Page, 1993 OK 165, 866 P.2d 1207. The applicant bears the burden in reinstatement proceedings, and that burden is recognized as a heavy one. See Matter of Reinstatement of Wright, 1995 OK 128, 907 P.2d 1060. Rule 11.4 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, provides the following:

An applicant for reinstatement must establish affirmatively that, if readmitted . . . the applicant's conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the Bar. The severity of the original offense and the circumstances surrounding it shall be considered in evaluating an application for reinstatement. The burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, in all such reinstatement proceedings shall be on the applicant. An applicant seeking such reinstatement will be required to present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking admission for the first time. The proof presented must be sufficient to overcome the Supreme Court's former judgment adverse to the applicant. Feelings of sympathy towards the applicant must be disregarded. If applicable, restitution, or the lack thereof, by the applicant to an injured party will be taken into consideration by the Trial Panel on an application for reinstatement. Further, if applicable, the Trial Panel shall satisfy itself that the applicant complied with Rule 9.1 of these Rules.

¶ 4 In addition, reinstatement proceedings are governed by Rule 11.5 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, which provides that before an applicant may be reinstated, the trial panel must specifically find that he or she: (1) possesses the good moral character entitling him to be admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association; (2) has not engaged in any unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension, disbarment or resignation; and (3) possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law in Oklahoma.

¶ 5 In our examination of the evidence presented we must also consider the following additional factors which we set forth in Kamins, supra, at 1130:(1) applicant's present moral fitness; (2)applicant's demonstrated consciousness of wrongful conduct and the disrepute presented for reinstatement; (3)extent of applicant's rehabilitation; (4) the seriousness of the original misconduct; (5) applicant's conduct after the imposition of discipline; (6) the time which has elapsed since the resignation; (7) applicant's character, maturity and experience at the time of discipline or resignation; and (8) applicant's present competence in legal skills. See also Matter of Reinstatement of Clifton, 1990 OK 15, 787 P.2d 862, 863.

¶ 6 Our primary concern in consideration of applications for reinstatement, as in all licensing and discipline matters, is not to punish attorneys, but to safeguard the public, the courts and the legal profession. We therefore undertake our duty to determine an application seeking reinstatement to the bar with utmost seriousness. See Kamins, supra, at 1129. It is with these directives in mind that we now examine the evidence presented in the matter of Ms. Meek's reinstatement.

¶ 7 The relevant facts are these. Ms. Meek was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association and her name was entered on the Roll of Attorneys in 1983. It appears she was a general practitioner and, at the times pertinent to our inquiry, she was in practice by herself. Ms. Meek's disciplinary history reveals that in 1994 in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Meek, 1994 OK 118, 895 P.2d 692, this Court suspended her from the practice of law for one year and imposed costs in the amount of $1,065.96, based upon our findings that she had: (1) commingled and converted client funds; and (2) knowingly misrepresented facts surrounding the complaint to the Bar Association in the grievance process. In that matter, her client had filed a grievance against her with the Bar Association on October 26, 1993, because Ms. Meek had deposited an alimony check from the client's ex-husband in her operating account rather than in her attorney trust account, and had applied the proceeds to her own expenses rather than for the intended purpose of paying on the alimony debt. After the client requested payment, Ms. Meek wrote her checks on her trust account but they were returned for insufficient funds.

¶ 8 On October 22, 1996, Ms. Meek was disbarred by order of this Court in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Meek, 1996 OK 119, 927 P.2d 553, based on unrelated grievances filed in 1995 by two clients. Both alleged professional misconduct by Ms. Meek had occurred during approximately the same period of time as the matter at issue in the suspension proceeding. These grievances alleged Ms. Meek failed to communicate with her clients, failed to perform the legal services she was hired to do and misrepresented to her the clients what legal services she had in fact performed for them.

¶ 9 In one matter, a mother had retained Ms. Meek to file an appeal of her son's criminal conviction and Ms. Meek failed to file the brief in the correct form. She then failed to respond to an order issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals to submit a corrected brief, and failed to respond to a show cause order as to why she had not complied or proceeded diligently with the appeal. Although she assured her client the proper filings had been made, no brief was ever filed and the appeal was dismissed by the Court. In the other matter, a client had tried unsuccessfully to find Ms. Meek so she could get her files back and hire another lawyer. She testified she happened to see Ms. Meek at a neighborhood festival and approached her to discuss the case, but that Ms. Meek acted strangely and "kind of ran away." The client then complained to the Bar and sought its assistance.

¶ 10 The Bar Association's attempts to notify Ms. Meek of those grievances by regular mail and certified mail were unsuccessful, and private process servers were used to serve her copies of the grievances and subpoenas to appear for depositions concerning them. She did not respond to the grievances, but she did appear for one of the depositions. At the deposition, Ms. Meek initially refused to give an address where the Bar Association could contact her, expressing concern that she and her daughter might be in physical danger from a former criminal client if she could be located through the Bar Association. She also alleged that employees...