State v. Ezell

Decision Date16 June 2020
Docket NumberSCBD 6847
Citation466 P.3d 551
Parties STATE of Oklahoma, EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Julia Marie EZELL, Respondent.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Gina L. Hendryx, General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.

Edward Blau, Blau Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.

Winchester, J. ¶1 This is a summary disciplinary proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings1 based upon Respondent Julia Marie Ezell's plea of guilty to two misdemeanor counts of (1) Falsely Reporting a Crime in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 589, and (2) Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1958.

¶2 On October 22, 2019, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) notified the Court of Ezell's plea of guilty. On November 4, 2019, this Court entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension. On December 16, 2019, this Court assigned the matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (Trial Panel) to hold a hearing on the limited scope of mitigation. On January 28, 2020, the Trial Panel held a Rule 7 hearing. On February 27, 2020, the Trial Panel filed its report, recommending that this Court suspend Ezell for one year, effective from the date of her interim suspension.

I. FACTS

¶3 In 2006, Ezell received her license to practice law in Oklahoma. She practiced law, in good standing, until the date of her interim suspension.

¶4 Ezell became General Counsel for the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) in November 2017. The agency tasked Ezell with drafting the rules and regulations to govern the implementation of legalized medical marijuana in Oklahoma. Ezell contends interested parties within the Oklahoma state government and the Oklahoma State Board of Health were attempting to influence the promulgation of the administrative rules, pushing to include two unlawful rules which required pharmacists in each dispensary and banning "smokables." Ezell voiced her concerns regarding the unlawful rules, but the interested parties told her to draft the rules to include the two constraints.

¶5 Ezell experienced extreme stress due to the pressure to draft the medical marijuana rules, including those she believed were unlawful, and problems in her personal life. On account of the stress, Ezell began sending threatening emails from a fictitious email address to her official government email address that appeared to be authored by proponents of the medical marijuana referendum. She obtained the fictitious email address from protonmail.com (Proton Mail). From July 8, 2018, until July 12, 2018, Ezell sent ten emails to herself with escalating threats to her safety.

¶6 Ezell immediately reported the first email to an investigator at OSDH. On July 9, 2018, OSDH requested that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) investigate the threatening emails. The Edmond Police Department provided surveillance at Ezell's workplace and home. The Edmond Police Department also escorted Ezell from work and checked Ezell's personal vehicle for a GPS device. The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center's Police Department provided Ezell further security while she was at her workplace. OSBI placed pole cameras in Ezell's neighborhood to monitor Ezell's house and the traffic in the neighborhood.

¶7 After OSBI launched its investigation, Ezell continued to send emails with escalating threats to herself. Ezell also provided to OSBI names of individuals that she believed could have access to her phone or be sending her threatening emails. As a result, OSBI obtained information on medical marijuana proponent groups and contacted law enforcement across the United States requesting information on similar threats. OSBI, through the assistance of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request to Switzerland, ultimately determined that the Proton Mail account was registered to Ezell's husband.

¶8 On July 12, 2018, Ezell turned her phone over to OSBI, who performed a forensics examination of the phone. OSBI determined Ezell was responsible for creating the Proton Mail email account and sending the emails at issue. On July 13, 2018, OSBI met with Ezell to discuss the results of the forensics examination of her phone. Ezell continued to implicate other individuals who could be responsible for the emails and did not take responsibility for her actions. It was not until OSBI confronted Ezell with the information gathered from the forensics examination that Ezell admitted her wrongdoing. Ezell then confessed to OSBI that she was responsible for the threatening emails.

¶9 On July 17, 2018, the Oklahoma County District Attorney charged Ezell with two felonies, Presenting False Evidence at Trial and Using a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes, and one misdemeanor, Falsely Reporting a Crime. The Oklahoma County District Attorney eventually dismissed one felony charge and reduced the other felony charge to a misdemeanor. Ezell pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts, Falsely Reporting a Crime and Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes. The district court ordered her to pay $21,810 in restitution for the costs involved in the OSBI investigation, which Ezell paid upon entering her plea of guilty. The district court deferred sentencing until October 15, 2024. Ezell fully paid all court costs, fees, and probation fees in advance.

II. MITIGATION

¶10 After confessing to OSBI regarding her wrongdoing, Ezell resigned from her position as General Counsel of OSDH. Ezell sought inpatient treatment at Oakwood Springs. Less than twenty-four hours later, Oakwood Springs released Ezell from inpatient treatment finding Ezell had no underlying mental issue but was undergoing extreme stress, anxiety, sleep-deprivation, and adjustment disorder. Instead, Ezell sought outpatient treatment four days a week for three and a half hours a day for approximately four weeks. Ezell's treatment centered around learning coping skills for anxiety and stress. Ezell then began private counseling. Ezell continues to attend therapy with Jackie Shaw, who diagnosed Ezell with anxiety and chronic depression. Ms. Shaw recommends that Ezell continues with therapy and medication for her anxiety.

¶11 At the hearing before the Trial Panel, Ezell testified regarding her struggles in her position as General Counsel and her personal life. Ezell attempted to resign from the General Counsel position on two occasions due to the stress of the job, but her supervisor—for various reasons—urged Ezell to stay with OSDH. It was difficult for Ezell to resign from OSDH because she is the sole income provider for her husband and four children, including one child with special needs. Ezell testified her main motivation for sending and reporting the threatening emails was for law enforcement to obtain her cellphone, which contained what she perceived as evidence of the corruption surrounding the promulgation of the medical marijuana rules.

¶12 Ezell presented five character witnesses at the hearing, who all testified Ezell is a well-respected attorney and passionate about helping families with special needs. Ezell expressed remorse and shame for her actions, especially regarding the time and resources spent on the OSBI investigation.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13 In disciplinary proceedings, this Court acts as a licensing court in the exercise of our exclusive jurisdiction. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Garrett , 2005 OK 91, ¶ 3, 127 P.3d 600, 602. Our review of the evidence is de novo , and the Trial Panel's recommendations are neither binding nor persuasive. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Anderson , 2005 OK 9, ¶ 15, 109 P.3d 326, 330. This Court's responsibility is not to punish an attorney, but to assess the continued fitness to practice law and to safeguard the interests of the public, the courts, and the legal profession. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn , 2006 OK 50, ¶ 3, 142 P.3d 420, 422.

¶14 This Court also has the responsibility to ensure 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. Adams , 1995 OK 17, ¶ 4, 895 P.2d 701, 704. We find the record submitted in this proceeding is sufficient for our de novo review.

IV. DISCUSSION

¶15 Ezell's plea of guilty to two misdemeanor charges of Falsely Reporting a Crime and Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes serves as the basis for this summary disciplinary proceeding. Rule 7.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) provides:

A lawyer who has been convicted or has tendered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a deferred sentence plea agreement in any jurisdiction of a crime which demonstrates such lawyer's unfitness to practice law, regardless of whether the conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or from a verdict after trial, shall be subject to discipline as herein provided, regardless of the pendency of an appeal.

Rule 7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A.

¶16 Not every criminal conviction facially demonstrates a lawyer's unfitness to practice law. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong , 1990 OK 9, ¶ 8, 791 P.2d 815, 818. In fact, a lawyer should answer only for offenses that indicate lack of characteristics relevant to the practice of law. Rule 8.4, Cmt. 2, Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2011, ch.1, app. 3-A.2 Answerable offenses typically involve violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice. Id .

¶17 Ezell's criminal conduct reflects adversely on her honesty and fitness to practice law in violation of ORPC Rule 8.4(b) and (c)3 and RGDP Rule 1.34 and warrants discipline. Ezell sent emails to herself containing escalating threats and falsely reported the emails to OSDH, which launched an OSBI investigation that cost over $20,000. Ezell was not forthcoming with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wagner
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 1 Febrero 2022
    ...as they relate to the administration of justice do not require pejorative adjectives or insults.¶31 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Ezell , 2020 OK 55, 466 P.3d 551, the lawyer was guilty of two misdemeanor counts, (1) Falsely Reporting a Crime in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 58......
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Levisay
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 6 Octubre 2020
    ...and the PRT's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of discipline are not binding on this Court. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Ezell , 2020 OK 55, ¶ 13, 466 P.3d 551, 554 ; State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Cooley , 2013 OK 42, ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 453, 454.IV. DISCIPLINE ¶19 ......
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Pistotnik
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 24 Noviembre 2020
    ...and the PRT's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of discipline are not binding on this Court. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Ezell , 2020 OK 55, ¶ 13, 466 P.3d 551, 554 ; State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Cooley , 2013 OK 42, ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 453, 454. The record consist......

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