 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Seratt3/4/2003
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, initiated Rule 6 disciplinary proceedings against Respondent, Monte Seratt, alleging thirteen counts of professional misconduct for client neglect, failure to competently represent his clients, acts of deceit and misrepresentation relating to both endorsement and payment of settlement checks, repeated failure to adequately respond to the inquiries of the Oklahoma Bar Association and misrepresentation and deceit regarding his February 2002 deposition testimony at the bar association. Respondent failed to answer the Complaint or contact the bar association in response to the formal proceedings. He was not present for the disciplinary hearing. Respondent's failure to answer the complaint resulted in the allegations being deemed admitted. The Tribunal held a hearing in Respondent's absence to determine the discipline to be imposed. The Tribunal determined Respondent violated both the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, particularly stressing Respondent's misuse of and failure to safeguard client funds. The Tribunal recommended Respondent be disbarred. This Court agrees.
RESPONDENT DISBARRED AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS.
Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, brought Rule 6 disciplinary proceedings against Respondent, Monte L. Seratt, in a thirteen count complaint alleging client neglect, failure to competently represent his clients, acts of deceit and misrepresentation relating to both endorsing and paying settlement checks, repeated failure to adequately respond to the inquiries of the Oklahoma Bar Association and misrepresentation and deceit regarding his February 2002 deposition testimony at the bar association.
Two issues are presented in this disciplinary proceeding. First, was Respondent afforded due process in the disciplinary proceeding. Second, what is the appropriate discipline for Respondent's misconduct.
I. Due Process
Respondent appeared for a deposition at the bar center, in response to a subpoena, on February 6, 2002. At that time, he answered questions regarding a number of the grievances against him. He also promised written responses with regard to twelve client grievances that were not adequately explored at the deposition. Respondent never provided those responses. Accordingly, the bar association issued a subpoena for Respondent to appear at an April 8, 2002 deposition. Respondent did not appear for the April deposition.
On May 9, 2002, the bar association filed a formal complaint against Respondent relating to the clients and grievances discussed at the February deposition, as well as several matters not addressed at the deposition. The thirteen count Complaint was delivered to Respondent's office by certified, restricted mail and signed for by Respondent on May 13, 2002. The complaint was accompanied by a letter from the bar association explaining to Respondent that he had twenty (20) days to file an answer and in the absence of an answer, the charges shall be deemed admitted. Respondent never responded to the formal complaint. Hearing on the complaint was set for July 2, 2002. Respondent also failed to appear at the July 2nd hearing.
The record in this disciplinary action does not conclusively demonstrate that the bar association successfully notified Respondent of the July 2nd hearing date. However, it does reveal the following efforts by the bar to do so. Using a process server, the bar attempted personal service
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|