Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Townsend
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-05-08 · cited 53×
The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association filing a complaint against attorney Andrew Raymond Townsend for ten counts of professional misconduct, including missing court dates, failing to communicate with clients, lack of diligence, and not returning client files promptly. Townsend had been placed under interim suspension due to personal issues causing depression and anxiety, but the proceedings proceeded as a disciplinary matter under Rule 6 rather than an incapacity proceeding. After a hearing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, on de novo review, found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct warranting discipline but determined that Townsend was no longer incapacitated and could conform to professional standards. The court decided to impose a public reprimand and require payment of costs amounting to $1,193.91.
criminal lawprocedure
Ledbetter v. Howard
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-04-24 · cited 22×
The case involved a medical malpractice claim by Guy Ledbetter and his wife against Dr. Derek Howard and his radiology practice, alleging that Howard negligently misread an x-ray of Ledbetter's foot, delaying treatment for a rapidly deteriorating diabetic condition known as Charcot Foot and causing severe injury. After a jury verdict for the defendants, the trial court granted the plaintiffs a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically the jury foreperson (a nurse) improperly injecting her professional expertise during deliberations. The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the foreperson's affidavit was admissible under the extraneous prejudicial information exception to the juror testimony rule in 12 O.S. § 2606(B), that counsel reasonably relied on her pretrial assurance not to override the evidence with her expertise, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in finding the misconduct affected the plaintiffs' substantial rights. The court rejected arguments that the information was merely internal juror experience rather than extraneous. The decision focused on evidentiary admissibility and standards for reviewing grants of new trials.
proceduretorts & liability
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Zimmerman
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012-04-17 · cited 5×
This case is an original disciplinary proceeding brought by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Miles C. Zimmerman for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Responsibility and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings in his handling of a former client's criminal sentencing, post-conviction, and appellate matters. The Bar alleged that Zimmerman failed to pursue an appeal or obtain a trial transcript despite being paid for them, did not communicate his decisions or the status of the case to the client or her family, and improperly retained client funds for the transcript in his personal or operating accounts rather than a trust account. The court reviewed the facts across three counts, considered mitigating circumstances such as the attorney's health issues and family obligations, and compared the conduct to prior discipline cases involving neglect and trust account errors. It determined that violations occurred but imposed discipline short of suspension in light of the mitigating factors and lack of prior discipline.
criminal lawprocedure
STATE EX REL. OKL. BAR ASSO. v. Passmore
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-10-25
The case involved a disciplinary complaint by the Oklahoma Bar Association against attorney Joe Richard Passmore II, alleging in six counts that he neglected client matters by abandoning representation, failing to communicate with clients or return files, and refusing to respond to grievances or appear at a deposition despite proper notice. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a two-year-and-one-day suspension after Passmore failed to appear at the hearing. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma adopted this recommendation, finding violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (including 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, and 8.4) and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (1.3 and 5.2), based on the uncontested evidence of misconduct across several client representations.
procedure
STATE EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASS'N v. Latimer
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-09-20 · cited 8×
The case involved the Oklahoma Bar Association bringing a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against attorney Caesar Cooleridge Latimer, charging him with five counts of professional misconduct including incompetent representation of multiple clients, failure to communicate with clients, misrepresentations to clients and court personnel, and failure to respond to grievance inquiries. Latimer had a prior disciplinary suspension and did not meaningfully participate in the proceedings or respond to the complaints. Upon de novo review, the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the charges, along with aggravating factors such as prior discipline and disregard for the disciplinary process, while noting some mitigating factors like the attorney's long service. The court suspended Latimer from the practice of law for two years and one day and ordered him to pay costs of $2,042.42.
criminal lawprocedure
In Re the Reinstatement of Whitworth
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011-09-20 · cited 4×
This case concerned John Matthew Whitworth's petition for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar after a two-year suspension that began in 2006. The suspension stemmed from both Rule 6 disciplinary proceedings and a Rule 10 finding of personal incapacity due to methamphetamine addiction. Whitworth filed his petition in 2010, providing evidence of three years of sobriety, steady employment, compliance with MCLE requirements, payment of costs and restitution, and no unauthorized practice of law. Following a hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found by clear and convincing evidence that he satisfied Rule 11 requirements and recommended reinstatement. The Oklahoma Supreme Court conducted de novo review, applying the eight-factor test for reinstatement with particular weight on rehabilitation from the incapacity that led to suspension.
criminal lawprocedure