State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Knight, Case Number: SCBD-6614
Decision Date | 19 June 2018 |
Docket Number | Case Number: SCBD-6614 |
Citation | 421 P.3d 299 |
Parties | STATE of Oklahoma EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. David William KNIGHT, Respondent. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Katherine M. Ogden, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.
I. Procedural History
¶ 1 The Respondent, David William Knight, was licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and Oklahoma. In 2017, a Texas bar disciplinary action was commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas (Misc. Docket No. 17-9143). Knight filed a Motion For Acceptance Of Resignation As Attorney And Counselor At Law in the State of Texas in lieu of disciplinary action. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas filed a response to the motion wherein detailed allegations were made of Knight's professional misconduct and a recommendation was made to accept Knight's resignation. Knight also filed an acknowledgment of receipt of the response and waived the ten-day period for withdrawing his motion to resign. The acknowledgment also expressly stated Knight had reviewed the response in its entirety. On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Texas held the professional misconduct detailed in the response of the State Bar of Texas was conclusively established for all purposes. Knight's law license was immediately canceled, he was prohibited from practicing law, and was required to notify in writing each client, opposing counsel and court in which he had pending matters. As a condition for reinstatement, Knight was required to pay $10,300.00 to former clients.
¶ 2 On January 9, 2018, the Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA), filed with this Court a Notice of Order of Discipline pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2011 (as amended effective September 30, 2014), Ch. 1, App. 1-A.1 Attached to the notice was a certified copy of the Order of the Supreme Court of Texas as well as certified copies of the motion, response, and acknowledgment. Complainant notified this Court of the discipline imposed in Texas and that Knight did not inform the Complainant of the Texas discipline as required by Rule 7.7 (a), RGDP. On January 10, 2018, this Court issued an order acknowledging receipt of the notice and its contents. The order informed Knight that a failure to report discipline imposed in another jurisdiction is grounds for discipline in this jurisdiction and the Texas order imposing discipline is prima facie evidence he committed the acts therein. Knight was also informed he could request a hearing on or before January 31, 2018, pursuant to Rule 7.7 (b), RGDP and he could file a brief and any evidence supporting his conduct to mitigate the severity of discipline including a certified copy of the transcript of evidence taken by the trial tribunal in the Supreme Court of Texas. Any such brief or evidence was to be submitted on or before January 31, 2018. The order was mailed to Knight at his official OBA roster address. It was returned to sender. This Court did not receive any documentation from Knight on or before January 31, 2018. The Complainant then hired a process server which successfully served Knight on March 16, 2018, the Notice of Order of Discipline, Entry of Appearance by Katherine Ogden, Complainant's Brief in Support of a Recommendation of Discipline and this Court's original Order advising Knight of the deadline to respond to the recommendation. Thereafter, a revised Order was issued by this Court amending deadlines for Knight to respond to the recommendation. It was mailed to his official roster address as well as two other addresses, including the address where he was served. Each order was returned to sender. Notice by mail to a lawyer's official roster address is sufficient to satisfy due process. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Gaines , 2016 OK 80, ¶ 9, 378 P.3d 1212 ; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Haave, 2012 OK 92, ¶ 13, 290 P.3d 747.
II. Facts
¶ 3 Knight's disbarment in Texas was based on his misconduct related to representation of clients in five separate matters. The Response of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel identified each of the five separate matters as follows:
The Supreme Court of Texas held the professional misconduct detailed in the response was conclusively established for all purposes and Knight would have to pay restitution to each of these clients as an "absolute condition precedent" for reinstatement.
¶ 4 The pertinent Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct ("TDRPC") Knight was held to have violated are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Sweet
..., 2010 OK 72, ¶ 21, 242 P.3d at 522. Notice by mail to an attorney's official roster address satisfies due process. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 2018 OK 52, ¶ 2, 421 P.3d 299, 301. ¶11 We next find that Sweet's guilty pleas furnish clear and convincing evidence that she committe......
-
Smith v. Carlson
...continued fitness to practice law and to safeguard the interests of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Knight , 2018 OK 52, ¶ 6, 421 P.3d 299 (emphasis added) (citations responsibility to regulate the practice of law and the licensure, ethics, ......
-
State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Barrett, SCBD No. 6656
..., 2010 OK 72, ¶ 21, 242 P.3d 517, 522. Notice by mail to a lawyer's official roster address satisfies due process. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Knight, 2018 OK 52, ¶ 2, 421 P.3d 299, 301. We next find that Respondent's final conviction furnishes clear and convincing evidence th......