State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Adams

• Decision Date: 28 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. OBAD,OBAD
• Citation: 1995 OK 17,895 P.2d 701
• Parties: STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. John Quincy ADAMS, Respondent. 1159. SCBD 4058.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 701

895 P.2d 701

1995 OK 17

STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. John Quincy ADAMS, Respondent.

No. OBAD 1159.

SCBD 4058.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 28, 1995.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1995.

Bar Disciplinary Action.

This lawyer disciplinary matter was brought pursuant to Rule 6 and Rule 10 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 1-A. The Bar alleged violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 3-A and Rule 5.2 of the RGDP. The Bar also alleged Respondent was personally incapable of practicing law as defined in Rule 10.1(a), (b), and (c). After a hearing before a Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, the Trial Panel agreed with the Bar's assessment of Respondent's incapacity to practice law and recommended Respondent be suspended until further order of this Court and be required to pay the cost of the proceeding. We find, upon de novo review, that Respondent should be suspended for two years and one day.

Respondent Suspended for Two Years and One Day. Costs Charged to Respondent.

John E. Douglas, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, for complainant.

John Q. Adams, respondent, pro se.

OPINION

WATT, Justice.

On June 2, 1994, the Oklahoma Bar Association ("OBA") filed a complaint alleging that Respondent, John Q. Adams, violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct ("ORPC"), 5 O.S.1991, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, during the course of his representation of William and Debbie Brocker. The Bar alleged Adams violated Rule 5.2 of Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"), 5 O.S.1991, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, by failing to respond to the grievance sent by the Bar. In the complaint it was also alleged that Adams was personally incapable of practicing law. This proceeding was brought pursuant to Rules 6 and 10 of the RGDP.

A hearing was conducted before a Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal ("PRT") on July 27, 1994, at which time statements of counsel were considered, exhibits were introduced, and witnesses testified. Counsel for the Bar advised the Trial Panel that Adams had previously been privately reprimanded by this Court and that there were five pending grievances against him being investigated by the Bar. The Trial Panel then filed their findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of discipline. The Trial Panel concluded that the Rules of Professional Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings had been violated and that Adams was personally incapable of practicing law as defined in Rule 10.1(a), (b), and (c) of the RGDP. The Trial Panel recommended that Adams' license to practice law be suspended until further notice of this Court. The Bar also asked that the costs of the proceeding be assessed against Adams in the amount of $1,532.01.

This Court issued a briefing schedule requiring Adams to file his response to the Bar's brief by October 4, 1994. Adams failed to file a response brief or an application for an extension of time. The Bar has asked this Court to rule in this matter on the record presented to the Court which includes the Complaint, transcript of the hearing, Trial Panel's Report and the Bar's Brief. This we agree to do.

The degree of discipline this Court imposes upon an attorney for misconduct is based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. We do not function in disciplinary proceedings as a reviewing tribunal, but rather as a licensing court acting in the exercise of our exclusive original jurisdiction. In re Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma, 185 Okla. 505, 95 P.2d 113, 114 (1939). Our responsibility is to ensure that the record is sufficient for a thorough inquiry into essential facts and for crafting the appropriate discipline. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. Donnelly, 848 P.2d 543 (Okla.1992). The record in this action is sufficient for our de novo consideration. The Court's responsibility in a disciplinary proceeding is not to punish but to inquire into the lawyers' continued fitness, with a view toward safeguarding the interest of the public, the courts and the legal profession. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. Moss, 682 P.2d 205, 207 (Okla.1983).

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF RULE 1.3

AND 1.4

VIOLATIONS

The Brockers purchased a mobile home on August 24, 1988, from Harvey L. Lakey. Shortly after moving in, the Brockers learned that the home had no septic tank and raw sewage was being dumped on the ground underneath the trailer. The Brockers retained Adams to sue Mr. Lakey but despite repeated assurances by Adams, he never filed suit. Thereafter, Mr. Brocker became disabled and also became delinquent in his payments on the contract for deed with Lackey. Lackey sued the Brockers on October 5, 1990, to foreclose on the mobile home.

Adams filed an Entry of Appearance, Answer and Cross-Petition on behalf of the Brockers. Adams never prosecuted the Cross-Petition. On March 18, 1992, Lackey's attorney filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the hearing set for April 8, 1992 ¹. Adams never filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Adams attended the hearing on April 8th, where the court entered judgment against the Brockers for $10,124.58 principal, plus interest and attorney's fees and for foreclosure of the mobile home. Adams approved and signed the Journal Entry of Judgment. The Brockers were subsequently evicted from the mobile home.

It is disputed whether the Brockers received a copy of the Journal Entry of Judgment from Adams' office. When the Brockers discovered judgment had been taken against them and that the mobile home was to be sold, they went to see Adams. Adams told them they still had a viable claim on the Cross-Petition. After that meeting, the Brockers contacted another attorney and fired Adams. The Brockers were advised by the other attorney that the Cross-Petition could not be litigated because Lackey, the only named defendant, had died, his will had been probated and his estate closed.

We find Adams' conduct in failing to prosecute the Cross-Petition and failing to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment violates the mandatory provisions of Rule 1.3 of the ORPC. This rule requires reasonable diligence and promptness by an attorney in representing a client. Further, Adams violated the requirement of Rule 1.4 of the ORPC by failing to keep his clients informed of the status of their case. Adams' conduct constitutes grounds for professional discipline.

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF RULE 5.2

VIOLATION

Upon the filing of the grievance by Mr. Brocker, the General Counsel for the Bar sent a letter to Adams enclosing a copy of the grievance and informing Adams of his duty under the RGDP to respond within 20 days. Adams did not respond. The General Counsel wrote a second letter advising Adams that if he did not respond a subpoena would be issued requiring his testimony concerning the matter. No response was received and, as a result, a subpoena duces tecum was served. On the day of the scheduled deposition, Adams faxed a letter stating he was sick with the flu and couldn't attend. The General Counsel's office sent a letter offering to reschedule the deposition and requesting that Adams contact the General Counsel's office to make arrangements. Adams did not contact the General Counsel's office. In all, three subpoenas were issued and served on Adams. He did not appear at any of the scheduled depositions.

On the day of the second deposition, Adams called to say that the weather was bad and that he was turning around to go home. The Bar agrees that the weather was bad and getting worse at that time. On the day of the third scheduled deposition, the Bar received a faxed letter from Dr. J. Earle White in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The doctor informed the Bar that Adams had been admitted to the hospital for an illness which would require four to five weeks treatment and recuperation. Adams checked himself out of the hospital three days later, but did not contact the Bar.

While one or two of his absences may be excusable, Adams' failure to contact the Bar or make any efforts whatsoever to reschedule the depositions shows his total indifference towards this matter. Rule 5.2 of the RGDP states that "[t]he failure of a lawyer to answer within twenty (20) days after service of the grievance (or recital of facts or allegations), or such further time as may be granted by the General Counsel, shall be grounds for discipline."

RULE 10

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

Rule 10.1 of the RGDP states that the term "personally incapable of practicing law" shall include:

(a) Suffering from mental or physical illness of such character as to render the person afflicted incapable of managing himself, his affairs or the affairs of others with the integrity and competence requisite for the proper practice of law;

(b) Active misfeasance or repeated neglect of duty in respect to the affairs of a client, whether in matters pending before a tribunal or in other matters constituting the practice of law; or

(c) Habitual use of alcoholic beverages or liquids of any alcoholic content, hallucinogens, sedatives, drugs, or other mentally or physically disabling substances of any character whatsoever to any extent which impairs or tends to impair ability to conduct efficiently and properly the affairs undertaken for a client in the practice of law.

If the Court finds the respondent personally incapable of practicing law, he shall be formally suspended from the practice of law until the further order of the Court. Rule 10.10 of the RGDP. Rule 10 proceedings are kept confidential and do not become a matter of public record except where disciplinary proceedings are involved (Rule 6) or otherwise ordered by the Court. Rule 10.12 of the RGDP.

In a Rule 10 proceeding the main objective is to minimize the potential risk to the public from a practitioner's incapacity....