State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Munson, s. 3840
| Decision Date | 16 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 3840,3894,s. 3840 |
| Citation | 848 P.2d 555,1993 OK 12 |
| Parties | STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Edward L. MUNSON, Respondent. SCBD |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Gloria Miller White, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, Oklahoma City, for complainant.
Edward L. Munson, pro se.
The two bar disciplinary actions pending against Respondent, SCBD No. 3840 and SCBD No. 3894, are hereby consolidated. The surviving number shall be SCBD No. 3840. Before this Court is an affidavit filed by Edward L. Munson in each of the above-styled bar disciplinary actions, pursuant to Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991 ch. 1, App. 1-A, requesting that he be allowed to resign his membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and relinquish his right to practice law, and Complainant's Application for Order Approving Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings. Upon consideration of the matter we FIND:
1. Respondent Edward L. Munson executed his resignation pending disciplinary proceedings on February 1, 1993.
2. Respondent's resignation was freely and voluntarily tendered; he was not acting under coercion or duress and he was fully aware of the consequences of submitting his resignation.
3. Respondent was aware of formal disciplinary proceedings pending against him in SCBD # 3840, OBAD # 1062, styled State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Edward L. Munson. A formal hearing under Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings was held before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal in that matter and the Tribunal recommended to this court that Respondent be suspended for two (2) years and one (1) day for violations of Rules 8.4(c) and 1.15(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The matter was pending in this Court awaiting the 4. Respondent was aware of the filing of a formal complaint against him in the Supreme Court on January 8, 1993, styled State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Edward Lee Munson, OBAD # 1094, SCBD # 3894, alleging violations of the mandatory provisions of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(a) and (b), Rule 1.16(a) and (b) and Rule 8.4(c) and (e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules 1.4(b) and 5.2, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. A copy of the complaint is attached to the Respondent's resignation, and a copy thereof is attached to this Order.
filing of briefs at the time Respondent filed his resignation. The Trial Panel found that Respondent had been previously suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year by order of this Court in OBAD # 813, wherein Respondent had been charged with two counts of misrepresentation and neglect. A copy of the Report of the Trial Panel, filed January 7, 1993, is attached to this Order.
5. Respondent was aware that the Complainant had filed in this Court an Application for Interim Suspension Order, pursuant to Rule 6.2A, Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedure, requesting that he be immediately suspended from the practice of law until further order of this Court.
6. Respondent recognizes and agrees that he may not make application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to expiration of five years from the date of this order;
7. Respondent has agreed to comply with Rule 9.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, and he acknowledges that he may be reinstated to practice law only upon compliance with the conditions and procedures prescribed by Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
8. Respondent has agreed to pay all costs incurred by the Oklahoma Bar Association in the investigation of this matter.
9. The resignation pending disciplinary proceedings executed by Respondent is in compliance with Rule 8.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991, ch. 1, App. 1-A.
10. Respondent's name and address appear on the official roster maintained by the Oklahoma Bar Association as: Edward L. Munson, OBA # 6515, P.O. Box 1006, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74456.
11. Respondent's resignation should be approved.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Complainant's application and Respondent's resignation be approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and that he make no application for reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association prior to the lapse of five years from the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent comply with Rule 9.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991, ch. 1, App. 1-A.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay the costs of the Oklahoma Bar Association in regard to investigation of these matters, in the amount of $2,228.51, within a reasonable time from the date of this order.
SUMMERS, J., not participating.
Edward L. Munson, Respondent.
This proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Respondent, a private practitioner for nineteen years (Tr. 103), stands charged with violating the following provisions of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct:
Proceedings, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 1-A (1991). The complaint against Respondent, Edward L. Munson, was heard on December 11, 1992. At that time, both testimonial and documentary evidence was presented to the Trial Panel. Complainant, State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, was represented by Gloria Miller White, Assistant General Counsel. Respondent appeared pro se.
1. Rule 8.4(c) (). In Count I, Complainant alleges that the Respondent maintained two client trust accounts. One of the accounts was maintained at the First State Bank of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and the other at the Delaware County Bank in Jay, Oklahoma. Summarized, Complainant contends that on or about June 28, 1991, Respondent misrepresented the nature of a certain business transaction to the Delaware County Bank in order to induce the bank to give him immediate funds on a $48,000.00 check written by Respondent on his account at First State Bank; and, to wire transfer the funds covered by said check to a bank in another state. Complainant further claims that the check tendered to Delaware County Bank was dishonored for insufficient funds and that by writing and tendering the same, Respondent knowingly misrepresented the status of the account. In Count II, Complainant alleges that on or about July 2, 1991, Respondent wrote another insufficient funds check in the amount of $6,851.33 on his trust account at the Delaware County Bank. This check was made payable to Jack and Priscilla Krogh and it, too, was dishonored for insufficient funds at the time it was presented for payment. Complainant contends that, by writing and tendering said check, Respondent knowingly misrepresented the status of the account, all in violation of Rule 8.4(c) ORPC.
2. Rule 1.15(b) (). Complainant also alleges in Count I that after the insufficient funds check tendered to the Delaware County Bank was dishonored, a civil judgment was taken against Respondent which he failed to pay in violation of Rule 1.15(b).
In Count III, the Complainant alleges that Respondent had been previously disciplined and suspended, which allegation is presented as an aggravating circumstance and to support enhanced discipline.
Apart from the circumstances relating to Count III, the evidence relates to two separate instances of alleged misconduct, both of which arose in the context of a single underlying transaction between Respondent and Dr. Reuel Vammen and several members of his family. The Vammens either owned or claimed an interest in significant real estate holdings in northeastern Oklahoma.
Respondent wanted to set up what he described as an "integrated farm operation" (Tr. 104). At the same time, the Vammens wanted to sell approximately 8,000 acres to Respondent for that purpose. Mr. Munson planned to finance this business venture through the Minority Business Loan Development Agency. In order to get the real estate "approved", it was apparently necessary to comply with various health laws and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Respondent's testimony, a substantial amount of money was going to be required (Tr. 104-105) and the Vammens loaned him the sum of $62,000 (Tr. 104 and 112) for this purpose.
At some point in early 1991, Respondent experienced difficulties with his financing through the government. Apparently, he and the Vammens pursued other avenues of financing without success. As a result, Dr. Vammen requested repayment of the The evidence establishes that Mr. Munson first attempted to repay Dr. Vammen on June 12, 1991. On that date, he wrote a check payable to Vammen and his wife in an amount slightly in excess of $46,000 which was drawn on "Edward L. Munson and Associates, Attorneys at Law, Client Trust Account" at the First State Bank of Tahlequah, Oklahoma. (Complainant's Exhibit 1) The check was presented for payment and dishonored for insufficient funds. In fact, according to the applicable bank statement, the balance in the account on the date this check was written was $187.75. (Complainant's Exhibit 4) Moreover, the highest balance in the account for the entire month of June, 1991 was only $1,878.09. With the dishonor of this instrument, Mr. Munson's debt to the Vammens (a debt which he does not dispute) remained unpaid. These circumstances explain subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Discipline of Hall, No. 40728 (NV 7/15/2004), 40728.
...See In re Slattery, 767 A.2d 203 (D.C. 2001); Rogers v. The Mississippi Bar, 731 So. 2d 1158 (Miss. 1999); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Munson, 848 P.2d 555 (Okla. 1993). 29. See Matter of Christie, 574 A.2d 845 (Del. 1990) (imposing three-year suspension without credit for temporary......
-
In the Matter of Reinstatement of Munson, 2010 OK 27 (Okla. 3/16/2010)
...is the attorney's third time before this Court. Munson was suspended from the practice of law from December 12, 1988 through January 4, 1990 (Munson I)1 for two counts of misrepresentation and neglect. The Bar Association filed a complaint against the attorney in 1992. The allegations were ......