State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Henderson, 4434

• Decision Date: 13 April 1999
• Docket Number: No. 4434,4434
• Citation: 977 P.2d 1096
• Parties: STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Joel A. HENDERSON, Respondent. SCBD
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1096

977 P.2d 1096

1999 OK 29

STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Joel A. HENDERSON, Respondent.

SCBD No. 4434.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 13, 1999.

Original Proceeding for Attorney Discipline.

Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, brought reciprocal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Disciplinary Proceedings, following Respondents's suspension from the practice of law in Colorado for three years. Respondent was directed by the Court to show cause why like discipline should not be imposed in Oklahoma and, having presented nothing to support a claim that the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court, to which Respondent stipulated, do not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma, nor evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline, reciprocal discipline is imposed.

RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OPINION.

Loraine D. Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.

Joel A. Henderson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Respondent, Pro Se.

HARGRAVE, V.C.J.

¶1 Joel A. Henderson, OBA # 10328 was admitted to the practice of law in Oklahoma on October 6, 1983. His official roster address is listed as 1336 S.W. 24th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73108. Respondent now lives in Oklahoma City and is licensed to practice in Texas and Colorado. Respondent recently was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for a period of three years, and is before this Court on a summary disciplinary proceeding by the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, Tit. 5, O.S. ch. 1, app. 1-A (1991) which provides:

"(a) It is the duty of a lawyer licensed in Oklahoma to notify the General Counsel whenever discipline for lawyer misconduct has been imposed upon him/her in another jurisdiction, within twenty (20) days of the final order of discipline, and failure to report shall itself be grounds for discipline.

b) When a lawyer has been adjudged guilty of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding, except contempt proceedings, by the highest court of another State or by a Federal Court, the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association may cause to be transmitted to the Chief Justice a certified copy of such adjudication and the Chief Justice shall direct the lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court at a time certain, not less than ten (10) days after mailing of notice, and show cause, if any he/she has, why he/she should not be disciplined. The documents shall constitute the charge and shall be prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described. The lawyer may submit a certified copy of transcript of the evidence taken in the trial tribunal of the other jurisdiction to support his/her claim that the finding therein was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline which may be imposed upon him/her, a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The General Counsel may respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting a recommendation of discipline."

¶2 Respondent did not notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of his suspension as required by Rule 7.7 ¹ The grievance committee of the State of Colorado notified Complainant on January 15, 1999 that Respondent had been suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court on November 2, 1998 in Cause No. 98SA345. The Bar then instigated reciprocal proceedings in Oklahoma by filing certified copies of the Colorado Supreme Court's order of suspension with this Court. We directed the Respondent, by Order filed February 2, 1999, to show cause why an order of discipline should not be entered.

¶3 In his "Show Cause Reply, the Respondent submitted the Stipulation of Facts upon which the Colorado suspension was imposed. The complaints in the Colorado proceedings involved Respondent's neglect of matters entrusted to him, failure to communicate with clients and inform them of the status of legal matters for which he was retained. ² In its order of suspension, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the stipulation of facts and discipline.

¶4 Under Rule 7.7, disciplinary action in another jurisdiction forms the basis for this Court's discipline of a lawyer and, the burden of proof is on the lawyer to support his claim that the finding was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma. Respondent's letter entitled "Show Cause Reply" contains no argument or citation of authority on either issue. He does not argue that the Colorado findings were not supported by the evidence--indeed, he stipulated to the facts on which discipline was imposed--and he makes no argument that the finding of the Colorado court does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma.

¶5 Respondent urges this Court, however, that some disciplinary action short of suspension should be imposed, or that if a period of suspension is imposed, it should be for less than the three year period of suspension imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. He offers, in mitigation, a detailed account of the numerous personal problems plaguing him during the time period involving the complaints in Colorado. The same facts in mitigation were presented to the Colorado Supreme Court, which imposed the lesser discipline of suspension, rather than disbarment. ³ We agree with the Colorado Supreme Court that the mitigating factors in the case indicated that a three-year suspension rather than disbarment was the proper sanction. The court noted that Respondent had no previous discipline and, at the time of the misconduct, was experiencing personal and emotional problems and had demonstrated remorse.

¶6 The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are substantially similar to the Oklahoma rules. Respondent's stipulated conduct, which resulted in a three-year suspension by the Colorado Supreme Court, would form the basis for similar discipline in Oklahoma. A three-year suspension is within the range of discipline that this Court has imposed...