State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Knight
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | SCBD No. 6262.,QBAD No. 2041. |
| Citation | 2015 OK 59,359 P.3d 1122 |
| Parties | STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. David William KNIGHT, Respondent. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Katherine Ogden, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.
David W. Knight, Wichita Falls, Texas, pro se.
¶ 1 This professional disciplinary proceeding arose after the respondent lawyer, David W. Knight, (1) practiced law in Oklahoma while his license was suspended by this Court, (2) failed to follow the rules for a lawyer with a suspended license, and (3) failed to timely and adequately respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association's requests for information in this proceeding. Knight's license to practice law is currently suspended. We suspend Knight's license to practice law for a period of two years and one day effective on the date this opinion is final and order him to pay costs in the amount of one-thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-six cents ($1,854.96), within ninety days of the date this opinion is final.
¶ 2 Knight was admitted to the practice of law in Oklahoma on October 14, 1982. Knight has also been licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. On July 16, 2014, this Court suspended Knight's license to practice law in Oklahoma for a period of one year. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 2014 OK 71, 330 P.3d 1216. This previous proceeding arose in Oklahoma as a reciprocal discipline case after the Grievance committee of the State Bar of Texas (District 14) ordered a one-year suspension of Knight's Texas license for his violation of Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC).1
¶ 3 Knight made no appearance in his previous Oklahoma disciplinary proceeding. His one-year suspension was imposed by the Court's opinion dated July 16, 2014, and that opinion did not explicitly find that an immediate implementation of discipline was necessary to protect the public. The Court's public docket on the internet shows that Knight's opinion imposing a one-year suspension was mailed to the parties on July 16, 2014. This internet docket was available for public viewing when the Court's opinion was filed, and Knight could have accessed this docket and verified the information when he received his copy in the mail. By application of Disciplinary Rule 6.15,2 Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.193,3 and the opinions of this Court explaining the effective date for imposition of lawyer discipline,4 Knight could have timely sought a rehearing between July 17, 2014 and August 5, 2014, and without a timely filed petition for rehearing his one-year suspension was effective on August 6, 2014.
¶ 4 Brackett, a resident of Texas, paid Knight $1,500.00 to represent him in an Oklahoma criminal misdemeanor proceeding, State v. Brackett, CM–2014–88, Cotton County, Oklahoma. On August 13, 2014, Knight and Brackett traveled to the Cotton County Courthouse where Knight negotiated a plea for Brackett with Assistant District Attorney Mark Clark. On that date Knight signed and acknowledged before Judge Flanagan a waiver of a jury trial on behalf of Brackett. Also at that time an order was presented to Judge Flanagan for a change of Brackett's plea. Knight executed these documents as “Attorney for Defendant.”
¶ 5 After these negotiations Knight informed Brackett that he would need to appear at the next hearing and enter his negotiated plea without Knight being present. On September 26, 2014, Brackett appeared before Judge Flanagan without Knight or any other lawyer. Brackett was not told by Knight that he had been suspended from the practice of law. Knight did not file a motion to withdraw in Brackett's case.
¶ 6 A Court Minute shows on August 18, 2014, in Case Nos. CF–2011–48 and CM–2011–244, Cotton County, Oklahoma, Knight appeared for and with the Defendant, Blake Keith Don Branham, at a hearing where the State wanted Branham incarcerated without bond, and Branham requested a hearing on his bond. The trial judge and assistant district attorney present at Branham's criminal proceeding testified before the trial panel and explained Knight's representation of Branham, including Knight's oral argument to the trial court on behalf of Branham and the bond he sought.
¶ 7 The trial judge testified he subsequently read Knight's suspension on OSCN. In the presence of the assistant district attorney, the judge telephoned Knight concerning his continued representation in criminal cases before the judge. The judge requested Knight to file motions to “withdraw from your cases and do whatever the Bar is telling you to do so that we can handle our cases here properly.” On August 27, 2014, Knight filed a motion to withdraw in Branham's case, and requested permission to withdraw “for reason that Defendant and this attorney are unable to agree on how this case is to proceed.” The trial judge and the assistant district attorney informed the Bar of the events.
¶ 8 The Bar requested Knight's response to a formal professional Grievance. During his testimony before the trial panel, Knight stated he was aware he failed to timely respond in an appropriate manner during his private reprimand proceeding before the Oklahoma Professional Responsibility Commission in 2011 and in the Oklahoma Supreme Court proceeding in 2014. He stated his awareness of his duty to respond to a Grievance when requested by the Bar, but he did not know why he had failed to respond to the Grievance in the present proceeding.
¶ 9 When Knight failed to respond as requested by the Bar he was subpoenaed for a deposition. He contacted the Bar and the date for the deposition was continued to accommodate his schedule. During this time the Bar informed Knight he was required to respond to the Grievance, and the deposition would occur on the re-scheduled date in the absence of his required “full and adequate response.” In addition to information concerning his representation in the criminal proceedings, the Bar requested information on the steps he had taken to implement the Supreme Court's 2014 order of suspension.
¶ 10 The day before the re-scheduled deposition and after the Bar offices were closed for the day, the Bar received a one-page fax from Knight stating it was his response to the Grievance. Knight's one-page fax states he thought he had thirty days from the date he received the Supreme Court's order for him to conclude his representation in Oklahoma courts. The Bar telephoned and faxed his office immediately after receiving the fax as well as the next day with a statement that his letter was not a complete response to the Grievance and his attendance at a deposition was still necessary because his letter gave no additional information concerning his clients, notifying them of his suspension, under what circumstances he had appeared in the District Court, and what representations he had made to others and the District Court concerning his license or representing clients. The Bar offered to continue the deposition until later in the day to provide Knight time needed to travel to the Bar offices in Oklahoma City. Knight did not answer his telephone or respond to the Bar's faxes that evening or the day of the re-scheduled deposition.
¶ 11 A hearing was held before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. Knight appeared pro se at the hearing and testified. Knight was asked why on August 13, 2014, he failed to inform the trial judge and the assistant district attorney that he had been suspended. He said, He said that on August 13, 2014, the day he appeared in District Court, he thought he had 15 or 20 days left “to practice or to file a petition for rehearing.”
¶ 12 He testified he thought his appearance in District Court with Branham on August 18, 2014, was proper because it was within thirty days after his receipt of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's opinion. He was asked the date he received the Supreme Court's opinion and how he calculated the thirty-day period. He responded he could not remember the exact date he received by mail the Supreme Court's opinion or whether he still possessed the envelope used for mailing the opinion to him, and he calculated the date the order became final for purpose of suspension as “the very, very end of August or—or the first week of September.”
¶ 13 He testified he was not aware of Rule 9.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and its requirement for notification of clients when a lawyer has his or her license suspended by this Court. He testified he could not remember when he told Brackett to hire another lawyer or how much he refunded to him: “I'm not sure exactly ... I know I refunded some of his money, if not all of it.”
¶ 14 Knight testified his law office is in Wichita Falls, Texas, and he was licensed to practice law in both Oklahoma and Texas. He stated during July and August 2014, he employed an office assistant to process his mail, and he had “trouble” receiving his certified mail during this period. He stated that at the time of his trial panel hearing this assistant was no longer employed by him. He also stated this same assistant was responsible for the timing for sending his letter responding to the Bar's Grievance by a fax transmission after 5:00 p.m. on the day before his rescheduled deposition. After the Bar rested its case, Knight repeated his earlier testimony “there was never any intent to violate the [Supreme]...
To continue reading
Request your trial