STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Dunlap, No. SCBD-4429.

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtHARGRAVE, V.C.J.
Citation995 P.2d 1148,2000 OK 8
Docket NumberNo. SCBD-4429.
Decision Date08 February 2000
PartiesSTATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. David M. DUNLAP, Respondent.

995 P.2d 1148
2000 OK 8

STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
David M. DUNLAP, Respondent

No. SCBD-4429.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

February 8, 2000.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 2000.


Allen J. Welch, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma city, Oklahoma, for Complainant.

David M. Dunlap, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se.

995 P.2d 1149
HARGRAVE, V.C.J

¶ 1 This proceeding is brought pursuant to Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 10A (Supp.1999). The Respondent, David M. Dunlap, was charged with violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and 3.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S. ch. 1. App. 3A (Supp.1999). The Respondent was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in May 1984 and his official address is: David M. Dunlap, OBA # 10638, 5929 N. May Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112.

¶ 2 The Respondent undertook to represent Tommy Dale Glass on May 13, 1996, in Glass' quest for post-conviction relief. After a jury trial in the district court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, Glass was convicted on March 31, 1983 of various crimes, including rape in the first degree, and was sentenced to 109 years. The conviction was affirmed on appeal and Glass had filed two applications for post-conviction relief, both of which were denied. Glass' wife and Respondent signed a contract which provided that the Respondent would file an application for post-conviction relief and would be paid $3,000.00 for his services. The Respondent agreed to begin work upon payment of one-half of the fee and testified that he received payment of $1500.00 approximately two weeks later. On June 5, 1996, he wrote a letter informing Glass of receipt of $1500.00 and stated that he would meet with Glass as soon as he had made some progress on the case. Respondent agreed that Glass would be allowed to review all applications and briefs before they were filed. Despite his agreement to meet with Glass within the

995 P.2d 1150
next several weeks, the Respondent never met with Glass in person and never has submitted any application or brief for Glass' review before filing

¶ 3 Some nine months later, on April 23, 1997, Respondent filed a three-page application for post-conviction relief in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma. The application failed to comply with 22 O.S.1991 § 1081 because it was not verified by the applicant and it did not contain a sworn statement of facts within the knowledge of the applicant. Although Glass' quest for post-conviction relief was based on allegedly newly-discovered information provided by Omni Investigations, the Respondent neglected to attach the Omni Report or any documents or exhibits supporting Glass' quest for relief. The Respondent also failed to file a brief in support of the application.

¶ 4 Despite filing two amendments to the application, the Respondent never attached the required documentation or filed a brief. The Respondent has stipulated that his insufficient documentation was one of the reasons the application was denied. On August 18, 1997, Glass, the client, filed a pro se amended application for post-conviction relief with the required documents attached.

¶ 5 By way of explanation, the Respondent testified that he had just learned in mid-April 1997 about a new federal law to take effect April 24, 1997 that would severely limit an applicant's ability to seek federal habeas corpus relief. To protect his clients' rights, Respondent felt that it was necessary to immediately get applications on file in the various counties. He had five or six applications to file that day and this short time fuse was the reason given for the deficiencies in the application he filed on behalf of Glass. The time constraint was also offered for his inability to present the application for Glass' review before filing.1

¶ 6 The District Court of Comanche County denied the application on August 28, 1997. The Respondent did not notify Glass of the denial of his application until two weeks later. Glass had just learned on his own of the denial by calling the Comanche county court clerk. The Respondent's letter to Glass incorrectly informed him that he had sixty (60) days in which to appeal, rather than thirty (30) days. Respondent said this was a typographical error.

¶ 7 On September 29, 1997, the Respondent filed an appeal and a motion for leave to file a successive application for post-conviction relief with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Respondent again neglected to attach the exhibits and documents that formed the basis of Glass' quest for relief. Unbeknownst to the Respondent, Glass had mailed a letter terminating his employment. Respondent did not learn of his termination until the day after he filed the appeal.

¶ 8 The brief filed by Respondent in the Court of Criminal Appeals was not prepared by him, but had been prepared at the correctional facility and sent to him by Glass. Glass also filed the same brief with the Court of Criminal Appeals, along with an application for leave to file successive applications for post-conviction relief pro se. The Court of Criminal Appeals expressed concern that the two briefs were identical, and they noted counsel's failure to attach any exhibits to his brief, while noting that the pro se brief did attach such exhibits.

¶ 9 The Court of Criminal Appeals, by order dated January 7, 1998, granted Glass' pro se request to file successive applications for relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Glass' pro se request for counsel to withdraw and remanded that application to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on that application and on other issues not properly addressed by the district court. The Court of Criminal Appeals expressed concern about Respondent's representation of Glass, and stated that because the application and record on appeal submitted by the Respondent did not contain copies of the exhibits and documents that formed the basis of Glass' claim for relief, they were unable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State of Okla. v. McCOY, SCBD No. 5592.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 21, 2010
    ...proceedings, and failure to take complete responsibility for actions warranted disbarment.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8, 995 P.2d 1148 [Failure to meet with client or file petition for post-conviction relief while accepting retainer warranted 30-day suspension.]; ......
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Zimmerman, No. SCBD–5756.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 17, 2012
    ...also The Bar recommended the cases of State ex rel. OBA v. Dunlap, 1994 OK 81, 880 P.2d 364( Dunlap I ) and State ex rel. OBA v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8, 995 P.2d 1148( Dunlap II ) to the trial panel as guidelines for imposing a private reprimand in this case. Dunlap I involved trust fund mismana......
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Jaques, SCBD No. 4152.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 18, 2000
    ...his services. 6. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Gasaway, 1991 OK 33, 810 P.2d 826, 830. 7. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8 ¶ 20, 995 P.2d 1148, 1152; State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, 770 P.2d 892, 8. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris, 1......
  • Weber v. Clark Cnty., Case# 2:10-cv-01990-KJD-RJJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • November 2, 2011
    ...but also that Tenequer was negligent. On the other hand, in a claim brought by Tenequer against the cattle owner, Jean w|auld attempt [995 P.2d 1148] to show that Tenequer was not negligent, a position inconsistent with Jean's representation of Mcintosh. This is illustrated by the fact that......
4 cases
  • State of Okla. v. McCOY, SCBD No. 5592.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 21, 2010
    ...proceedings, and failure to take complete responsibility for actions warranted disbarment.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8, 995 P.2d 1148 [Failure to meet with client or file petition for post-conviction relief while accepting retainer warranted 30-day suspension.]; ......
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Zimmerman, No. SCBD–5756.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 17, 2012
    ...also The Bar recommended the cases of State ex rel. OBA v. Dunlap, 1994 OK 81, 880 P.2d 364( Dunlap I ) and State ex rel. OBA v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8, 995 P.2d 1148( Dunlap II ) to the trial panel as guidelines for imposing a private reprimand in this case. Dunlap I involved trust fund mismana......
  • State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Jaques, SCBD No. 4152.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • July 18, 2000
    ...his services. 6. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Gasaway, 1991 OK 33, 810 P.2d 826, 830. 7. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Dunlap, 2000 OK 8 ¶ 20, 995 P.2d 1148, 1152; State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, 770 P.2d 892, 8. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris, 1......
  • Weber v. Clark Cnty., Case# 2:10-cv-01990-KJD-RJJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • November 2, 2011
    ...but also that Tenequer was negligent. On the other hand, in a claim brought by Tenequer against the cattle owner, Jean w|auld attempt [995 P.2d 1148] to show that Tenequer was not negligent, a position inconsistent with Jean's representation of Mcintosh. This is illustrated by the fact that......

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