State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hopkins, No. SCBD-4419.

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtWATT, J.
Citation995 P.2d 1153,2000 OK 15
PartiesSTATE of Oklahoma ex rel OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Charles A. HOPKINS, Respondent.
Decision Date29 February 2000
Docket NumberNo. SCBD-4419.

995 P.2d 1153
2000 OK 15

STATE of Oklahoma ex rel OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
Charles A. HOPKINS, Respondent

No. SCBD-4419.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

February 29, 2000.


Janis Hubbard, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Attorney for the Complainant.

Charles A. Hopkins, Respondent, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se.

995 P.2d 1154
OPINION

WATT, J.:

¶ 1 On January 29, 1999, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint against Respondent alleging four counts of professional misconduct. On March 1, 1999, an amended complaint was filed which alleged an additional seven counts of professional misconduct by Respondent.

¶ 2 On February 18, 1999, Respondent was personally served an alias subpoena duces tecum requiring that he appear at the Bar Center for a deposition. While Respondent appeared at the deposition, he did not bring with him any of the documents that the subpoena duces tecum required him to produce. Soon after the deposition commenced,

995 P.2d 1155
Respondent chose to terminate the deposition and stated that he didn't have the records available to him and therefore he couldn't refresh his recollection without having the materials in front of him

¶ 3 On March 23, 1999, complainant filed a motion to deem allegations admitted. On March 29, 1999, a hearing on the merits was set at which time the motion to deem allegations admitted was presented to the trial panel. The motion was reserved for future consideration and complainant proceeded to present the testimony of eleven witnesses. At the conclusion of the first day of hearing on the merits, the hearing was continued to April 30, 1999.

¶ 4 On April 30, 1999, Respondent did not appear for the hearing. The trial panel continued it to May 26, 1999, at which time Respondent did appear and the complainant presented additional testimony including that of Respondent, Charles Hopkins. It was at this hearing that the trial panel sustained the complainant's motion to deem allegations admitted.

THE JESSIE LOVE GRIEVANCE

¶ 5 Respondent was retained to represent Mr. Jesse Love in a guardianship case and an adoption case. Respondent was paid three checks totaling $1,300 in attorney's fees between June 7, 1995 and February 7, 1996. Respondent failed to return Mr. Love's telephone calls and failed to perform the work for which he was hired.

¶ 6 On February 24, 1998, the Office of the General Counsel mailed a letter to Respondent at his current roster address requesting him to communicate with Mr. Love within two weeks about his allegations. Respondent failed to respond.

¶ 7 On March 24, 1998, the Bar Association mailed a letter to Respondent requesting him to communicate with Mr. Love within five days about the allegations. Respondent failed to respond.

¶ 8 In accordance with Rule 5.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, "RGDP", on May 19, 1998, the Bar Association mailed a letter to Respondent advising him again of the grievance and further advising him that he was required to make a full and fair disclosure to the Bar Association of all the facts and circumstances within 20 days. This letter was not returned and Respondent failed to file a written response to the grievance.

¶ 9 On June 15, 1998, the Bar Association mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, a second letter requesting Respondent to respond within five days. Respondent failed to respond to all requests of the Bar Association and violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 8.1(b), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, "ORPC", and Rule 5.2, RGDP.

THE BILLIE WHITFIELD GRIEVANCE

¶ 10 On April 7, 1998, the General Counsel's office received a grievance from Ms. Billie Whitfield against Respondent in which she alleged that Respondent neglected her divorce case. She paid Respondent $250 in attorney's fees in June, 1997. He neglected to return her telephone calls and failed to perform the work for which he had been hired.

¶ 11 The Bar Association notified Respondent of the Whitfield grievance. As in the Love matter, Respondent failed to comply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State of Okla. v. McCOY, SCBD No. 5592.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 21, 2010
    ...clients informed, charging unreasonable fees, and misrepresenting facts to a federal court.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hopkins, 2000 OK 15, 995 P.2d 1153 [Repeated neglect of client matter for which fees were received, total disregard of disciplinary proceedings, and failure to t......
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downes, No. SCBD 4885.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 10, 2005
    ...failure to timely file pleadings with this Court warrant two-year-and-one-day suspension.); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hopkins, 2000 OK 15, 995 P.2d 1153 (Neglect of client matters, failure to cooperate with OBA investigative process, failure to appear for hearings, and failing to ......
2 cases
  • State of Okla. v. McCOY, SCBD No. 5592.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 21, 2010
    ...clients informed, charging unreasonable fees, and misrepresenting facts to a federal court.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hopkins, 2000 OK 15, 995 P.2d 1153 [Repeated neglect of client matter for which fees were received, total disregard of disciplinary proceedings, and failure to t......
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downes, No. SCBD 4885.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 10, 2005
    ...failure to timely file pleadings with this Court warrant two-year-and-one-day suspension.); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hopkins, 2000 OK 15, 995 P.2d 1153 (Neglect of client matters, failure to cooperate with OBA investigative process, failure to appear for hearings, and failing to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT