Scott v. Okla. Bar Ass'n
| Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | SCBD-6962 |
| Citation | 2022 OK 67 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF: JOEL EDWARD SCOTT, III, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 RULE 11 BAR REINSTATEMENTREINSTATEMENT DENIED; COSTS IMPOSED.
Dan Murdock, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Petitioner.
Loraine Dillinder Farabow, First Assistant General Counsel Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.
¶0 Petitioner, Joel Edward Scott, III, (Scott) seeks reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), after this Court approved Petitioner's voluntary resignation pending disciplinary proceedings. Multiple grievances were filed against Petitioner for misconduct, including misappropriation of client and third party funds, misrepresentations, neglect failure to respond to the OBA during its investigation, and the issuance of a tax warrant. After a reinstatement hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) determined Petitioner had not established by clear and convincing evidence that he had met all of the requirements for reinstatement and recommended that Petitioner's Petition for Reinstatement be denied. Upon de novo review, we agree and hold that reinstatement should be denied and impose $303.19 in costs.
¶1 The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner qualifies for readmission. [1] We answer this question in the negative, and hold Petitioner failed to follow Rule 11.1 of the RGDP for reinstatement by petition, failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite moral fitness and the competency and learning in the law required for readmission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, and failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law since his resignation.
¶2 Petitioner, Joel Edward Scott, III, (Petitioner), was admitted to the OBA on September 26, 2006.
¶3 On March 15, 2013, the OBA filed a four count grievance against Petitioner alleging misappropriation of client and third party funds, neglect, and failure to respond to the OBA during its investigation. The OBA then filed an amended complaint on October 14, 2013, alleging seven counts of misconduct involving misappropriation of client and third party funds, misrepresentations, neglect, failure to respond to the OBA during its investigation, and the issuance of a tax warrant.
¶4 On February 13, 2014, Petitioner, through his attorney of record, tendered his Affidavit of Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings pursuant to Rule 8.1, RGDP. [2] At the time of his resignation, Petitioner acknowledged that three additional grievances were also being investigated by the OBA.
¶5 On March 4, 2014, this Court issued an Order Approving Petitioner's Resignation pursuant to Rule 8.2, RGDP, which is tantamount to disbarment, [3] and ordered him stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. [4] In the Order Approving Petitioner's Resignation, we found Petitioner: (1) acknowledged that an Amended Complaint had been filed against him, which included seven counts of misconduct, (2) acknowledged that additional grievances had been opened against him and were under investigation by the OBA at the time he tendered his resignation pending disciplinary proceedings, and (3) waived any and all rights to contest those allegations being investigated against him by the OBA. See OBA v. Scott, 2014 OK 13, 322 P.3d 456.
¶6 On March 27, 2014, Scott filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule 9.1, RGDP, averring under oath that he had withdrawn from all pending cases and had notified all of his clients of his inability to represent them. Despite filing this Rule 9.1 affidavit, at least one of his clients testified at his reinstatement hearing that she did not receive notice of his resignation pending disciplinary proceedings. This same client also testified at Petitioner's reinstatement hearing that Petitioner never withdrew from her case and that to her knowledge, her legal matter was still pending. This client's testimony is supported by Petitioner's own Rule 9.1 affidavit, which does not show that this particular client was ever provided notice of his withdrawal, as well as the docket sheet in that case which shows that Petitioner failed to file a motion to withdraw and was never granted leave to withdraw in that matter.
¶7 The Oklahoma Client Security Fund Committee received multiple claims against Petitioner. The Committee approved three claims, but due to limited funds, it was only able to pay forty cents ($0.40) on the dollar of the total amounts approved to the claimants. Petitioner never made full restitution to those CSF claimants and has not offered or made restitution to any of his other victims to which he caused financial harm.
¶8 Along with his resignation pending disciplinary proceedings, Petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the OBA's investigation in the amount of $1,660.72 within ninety days of the Order, and he was ordered to repay the Client Security Fund for any funds expended. Petitioner did not pay the costs as ordered by this Court, nor did he request an extension of time in which to pay. As a result, Petitioner filed his Petition for Reinstatement prior to making restitution to his victims and the Client Security Fund and prior to paying the costs assessed against him in 2014 in OBA v. Scott, 2014 OK 13, 322 P.3d 456; despite this Court's order that he do so within ninety days of its March 4, 2014, Order Approving his Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings. See Scott, 2014 OK 13, 322 P.3d 456.
¶9 On August 5, 2020, Petitioner filed a Petition for Reinstatement of his license to practice law pursuant to Rule 11, RGDP. However, Petitioner failed to attach three required exhibits to his petition for reinstatement, although he did reference the three exhibits within his Petition for Reinstatement. [5]
¶10 On August 26, 2020, Petitioner reimbursed the Client Security Fund in the amount of $2,039.08. On the same date, Petitioner paid the costs assessed against him in OBA v. Scott, 2014 OK 13, 322 P.3d 456, in the amount of $1,660.72.
¶11 Upon receipt of the Petition for Reinstatement, the OBA requested Petitioner to complete a questionnaire in order for it to conduct a background investigation as required pursuant to Rule 11.2, RGDP. [6] The reinstatement hearing was originally scheduled for October 27 and October 28, 2020; however, due to Petitioner's failure to provide the requested information, the OBA was unable to complete its investigation. As a result, Petitioner was given the option of filing a motion requesting a continuance or having the OBA file a motion requesting a continuance due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the OBA's requests for information. Petitioner chose to file a motion for continuance on October 26, 2020. ¶12 Thereafter, Petitioner's reinstatement hearing was continued by agreement due to COVID-19 issues concerning counsel for both parties, as well as a medical emergency involving one of the lawyer trial panel members. Throughout the continuances of Petitioner's reinstatement hearing, and despite multiple requests by the OBA for Petitioner to provide and/or clarify information requested in the questionnaire, Petitioner failed to submit the necessary information.
¶13 Testimony from Petitioner's reinstatement hearing shows Petitioner failed to disclose or attach pleadings from multiple civil lawsuits in which he was involved, failed to account for lawsuits filed against him alleging the unauthorized practice of law and/or fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit, failed to account for various numerous periods of unemployment, and claimed he had received a private reprimand for his past misconduct as opposed to resigning pending disciplinary proceedings.
¶14 Additionally, Petitioner disclosed yet another employment position that was neither listed on his response to the reinstatement questionnaire nor mentioned during his testimony at his reinstatement hearing. In his Brief-in-Chief, Petitioner now claims that he was employed briefly by Attorneys Mark Bailey and Tim Synar, as a paralegal/investigator. Petitioner claims he "believed it was necessary to distance himself from any acts that did not meet the ethical standards attorneys should value..." and that it is his See Petitioner's Brief at 17(ii)(2) at p. 8.
¶15 Petitioner took twelve hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in 2019 and an additional twelve hours of CLE from April 22 through April 27 of 2021 after he filed his Petition for Reinstatement. From January 2014 until 2019, however, Petitioner failed to take any CLE. On or about June 2020, Petitioner provided paralegal services on occasion to Attorney Devin Resides in various legal matters. Petitioner often refused to accept payment for his services.
¶16 The Notices of Publications were given as required by Rule 11.3(b), RGDP, in The Oklahoma Bar Journal on August 2021, Vol. 92, No. 6 edition, and in The Journal Record on August 9, 2021. The notices advised interested persons when and where the reinstatement hearing would be conducted.
¶17 At his reinstatement hearing, the PRT informed Scott that he failed to reference and include affidavit(s) as required by Rule 11.1(a)(2), RGDP, attesting that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial