 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Schraeder6/18/2002
__ P.3d __
BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
In this disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, the issues to be decided are: Does the record submitted for our examination provide sufficient evidence for a meaningful de novo consideration of the complaint and of its disposition? and Is a license suspension for thirty (30) days an appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's breach of professional ethics? We answer both questions in the affirmative.
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE RECORD
On 26 January 2001 the Oklahoma Bar Association commenced this disciplinary proceeding against Fred M. Schraeder [Schraeder or respondent], a licensed lawyer, by filing a formal complaint in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings [RGDP]. The complaint alleges in four counts multiple violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct [ORPC] and of the RGDP. The charges include two grievances advanced by separate clients and respondent's failure to respond to the Bar's investigative inquiries in both matters. The Bar has since withdrawn its reliance on ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.2 and 8.4(c) in Count I (the McMinn grievance); ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.16(b)(2), (d), 3.2 and 8.4(c) in Count II (the Parsons grievance); and on ORPC Rule 8.4(c) in Counts II and IV (for respondent's failure timely to respond to the Bar's inquiries). The Bar now rests the four counts solely on: (1) ORPC Rules 1.4, 1.5, 1.15(b), 1.16(b)2, (d), 3.2, 8.4(a) and RGDP Rule 1.3 in Count I ; (2) ORPC Rules 1.4, 1.15(b), 8.4(a) and RGDP Rule 1.3 in Count III; and (3) ORPC Rules 8.1(b), 8.4(a) and RGDP Rules 1.3 and 5.2 in Counts II and IV.
At the commencement of its hearing on 16 May 2001 a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal [panel or PRT] recognized for the record the admission of the parties' stipulations of fact, conclusions of law and an agreed disciplinary recommendation. As for mitigation, the parties agreed that respondent had never before been disciplined (by the Professional Responsibility Commission or by this court) or been the subject of a formal investigation by the Bar's counsel. The parties submit professional burnout syndrome as a factor to be considered in mitigation of respondent's culpability.
Upon completion of the hearing and consideration of the stipulations and testimony on file, the trial panel issued its report (which incorporates the parties' stipulations). The panel recommended that respondent receive a private reprimand and be directed to pay the costs of this proceeding.
II. THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR A MEANINGFUL DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING
In a bar disciplinary proceeding the court functions as an adjudicative licensing authority that exercises exclusive original cognizance. The court's jurisdiction rests on the court's constitutionally vested, non-delegable power to regulate the practice of law, including the licensure, ethics, and discipline of this State's legal practitioners. In deciding whether discipline is warranted and what sanction, if any, is to be imposed for the misconduct charged, the court conducts a full-scale, nondeferential, de novo examination of all relevant facts, in which the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the trial panel are neither binding nor persuasive. In its task, the court is not guided by the scope-of-review rules that govern corrective relief on appeal or in certiorari proceedings in which another tribunal's findings of fact may have to be left undisturbed by adherence to some law-imposed standards of deference.
The
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|