Noma Gurich

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney James Albert Conrady after he pleaded guilty to six criminal counts, including second-degree burglary, possession of a firearm during a felony, reckless conduct with a firearm, and malicious injury to automobiles, stemming from an incident in which he forcibly entered a home and fired a handgun repeatedly following the end of a personal relationship. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found violations of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings Rule 1.3 and recommended a suspension of two years and one day. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews such matters de novo, independently determining whether misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and what discipline is warranted under its exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether an auto insurer breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to make an unconditional partial payment of underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits before a full settlement or release. The facts involved a minor passenger injured in a car accident whose economic damages were covered by the tortfeasor's liability policy, leaving only a dispute over noneconomic damages. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that the insurer's refusal to tender partial payments without a release did not amount to bad faith. The court reasoned that precedent permits insurers to litigate legitimate disputes over claim valuation without incurring tort liability, and the policy did not require advance payments absent agreement on the total amount due.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved disciplinary proceedings brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Ronald Douglas Cox for alleged professional misconduct in handling a client's probate matter and in responding to bar inquiries. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal found that Cox violated Rules 1.3 and 8.1(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, based on evidence that he neglected to complete a probate proceeding, failed to communicate with his client, and repeatedly ignored requests for information from the OBA. The Oklahoma Supreme Court adopted the tribunal's findings and ordered that Cox be publicly censured and pay costs of $1,012.85.

procedure