OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Shanbour

• Decision Date: 23 December 2003
• Docket Number: No. 4781.,4781.
• Citation: 2003 OK 116,84 P.3d 107
• Parties: STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Stephen Farris SHANBOUR, Respondent.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

84 P.3d 107

2003 OK 116

STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Stephen Farris SHANBOUR, Respondent.

No. 4781.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

December 23, 2003.

Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Complainant.

John W. Coyle, III of the Coyle Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for respondent.

LAVENDER, J.

¶ 1 In December 2002, pursuant to Rule 7 (Summary Disciplinary Proceedings Before Supreme Court) of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App.1-A, as amended¹, complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), by letter from its General Counsel's Office, notified us respondent, Stephen Farris Shanbour, a licensed attorney, after guilty pleas, was convicted and sentenced on ten (10) criminal charges in Oklahoma County District Court. The ten (10) charges were part of a seventy-five (75) count information filed in the criminal district court case in August 2000. The charges to which respondent plead and on which he was convicted and sentenced were one count of stalking in violation of 21 O.S. § 1173 and nine felony counts of either distribution or attempted distribution of obscene or indecent material in violation of 21 O.S. § 1021.² ¶ 2 In November 2002 respondent was sentenced on the charges. On the stalking count he received a one year sentence in the custody and control of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. On four counts he received two years imprisonment in the custody and control of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC), the imprisonment to be served concurrently on each and with the stalking count. On the remaining five counts he received ten (10) year suspended sentences under DOC's custody and control, these counts to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to his imprisonment.³

¶ 3 In January 2003, this Court issued an Order suspending respondent from the practice of law; gave him an opportunity to show cause, in writing, why a final order of discipline should not be made, whether he desired a hearing and to submit a brief and documents in the interest of explaining his conduct or mitigating the severity of discipline; and allowed the OBA to respond to his submissions. Respondent did not request a hearing. The OBA argues for disbarment; respondent for a suspension of two years and one day, retroactive to his arrest date in 2000 regarding the criminal charges. We hold the appropriate discipline is disbarment.

¶ 4 In State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shofner, 2002 OK 84, ¶¶ 4-6, 60 P.3d 1024, 1027, we delineated our role and responsibility in attorney disciplinary cases brought before us in the following language:

In disciplinary proceedings this Court acts as a licensing court in the exercise of our exclusive original jurisdiction, not as a reviewing tribunal. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downing, 1990 OK 102, 804 P.2d 1120, 1122. It is our nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to decide the discipline warranted when an attorney is found to have engaged in professional misconduct. Id.; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Barnett, 1997 OK 61, ¶ 2, 940 P.2d 493, 495 (Court's duty in misconduct cases is to independently determine the proper discipline)....

Our responsibility is not to punish the offending lawyer, but to assess his/her continued fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Meek, 1994 OK 118, 895 P.2d 692, 699. In misconduct cases, we are required to exercise our responsibility with a view to safeguarding the interests of the public, the courts and the legal profession. Id. In determining the proper discipline this Court compares the circumstances of the involved case with those of similar previous disciplinary cases involving other attorneys and we examine the respondent's previous disciplinary record—both inquiries geared to determining how best to serve the welfare of the public and the integrity of the bar. Meek, supra, 895 P.2d at 700. Also, to arrive at appropriate discipline, a fit factor to consider is the deterrent effect upon both the offending respondent and other attorneys who might contemplate similar conduct in the future. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, 770 P.2d 892, 899; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hall, 1977 OK 117, 567 P.2d 975, 978.

Mitigating circumstances are also often considered when assessing the appropriate measure of discipline. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Thomas, 1995 OK 145, 911 P.2d 907, 913. Also, although discipline should be administered fairly (i.e.evenhandedly), this Court has recognized that the extent of discipline must be decided on a case-by-case basis because each situation will usually involve different transgressions and different mitigating circumstances. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rozin, 1991 OK 132, 824 P.2d 1127, 1130. (Paragraph numbers omitted.)

¶ 5 In our view, respondent stands convicted of crimes that demonstrate his unfitness to practice law and that warrant his disbarment. The charging information in the criminal case and materials presented to us by both respondent and complainant to support their respective positions on discipline set forth the nature of the crimes involved here. In essence, at some time in the fall of 1998 respondent began a relentless campaign to harass a former secretary (R. H.). The harassment expanded to include R. H.'s boyfriend (T.H.) and the boyfriend's daughter (A.H.), who was approximately eleven (11) years old.⁴ Respondent's criminal behavior began because he became obsessed with R.H. and the criminal activity continued until approximately July 2000 when he was arrested. The pre-sentence investigation report in the criminal case (submitted to us in this matter by respondent), plainly indicates that respondent knew the wrongfulness of his misconduct.

¶ 6 The intended victim of the four attempted distribution counts to which respondent plead guilty was A. H., the minor daughter of T.H. The materials respondent was using to harass or attempt to harass his victims include his "writings", which he mainly placed on cards and/or postcards mailed to his victims. These materials include some of the most vile language imaginable. It is plain from our review of the pre-sentence investigation report that, at least, some of the materials were, at a minimum, impliedly threatening and caused fear in one or more of the victims. Further, in one case, in essence, the material accused T.H. of child molestation.⁵ The only reason A.H. did not actually view respondent's abhorrent "writings" was that T.H. was able to intercept the mail at their residence before his daughter was exposed to it. As to the five distribution counts to which he plead guilty, one involved material sent to R. H., one to T. H., one to T. H.'s boss, and one each to two other women.

¶ 7 At a minimum, respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App. 3-A, which provides, "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." It also violated Rule 1.3 of the RGDP which provides:

The commission by any lawyer of any act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct, whether in the course of his professional capacity, or otherwise, which act would reasonably be found to bring discredit upon the legal profession, shall be grounds for disciplinary action, whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, or a crime at all. Conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to the imposition of discipline.

¶ 8 In mitigation, respondent has, in effect, presented documentation that he was suffering from depression and/or obsessive/compulsive disorder when he committed these crimes. He has also presented letters from attorneys and others on his behalf that were earlier submitted to the criminal sentencing judge. Materials before us further indicate he underwent mental health treatment prior to his sentencing in the criminal case, both psychotherapy and medication for his mental health disorder(s), and, apparently, he continues to receive treatment while he is serving his prison term. Documentary material from a psychiatrist who has treated respondent, dated January 2003, in effect, indicates that with continued psychotherapy and proper medication, his mental health problems have been "cured".

¶ 9 Notwithstanding the materials presented by respondent in mitigation (which we have thoroughly reviewed), we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate discipline and that respondent's disbarment will best serve the welfare of the public and the integrity of the bar. Although we have recently pointed out that at times we have meted out discipline of less than disbarment where the issue of the appropriate discipline arose from a felony conviction [State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wyatt, 2001 OK 70, ¶ 8, 32 P.3d 858, 859-860—the lawyer in Wyatt was disbarred after his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree], the nature of the crimes in this matter lead us to conclude that respondent must be disbarred. The most egregious transgression(s), in our view, attempted to envelope an innocent minor in his obsessive scheme of relentless harassment. The conduct involved multiple victims and occurred over a lengthy period of time. Respondent's overall conduct displayed a complete abdication of judgment, even though respondent knew the wrongfulness of his actions. In view of our responsibility to protect the public and to preserve the trust and confidence in those individuals who are licensed by this Court as legal practitioners, and considering the nature of these crimes, disbarment is warranted.

¶ 10 IT IS ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT, STEPHEN FARRIS SHANBOUR IS DISBARRED AND HIS NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF...