Case Title: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2013-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOON  STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOON 2013 OK 7 Case Number: SCBD-5847 Decided: 01/22/2013 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. LEWIS B. MOON, (a.k.a. "L.B. MOON"), Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR DISCIPLINE ¶0 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon (Moon I), 2012 OK 77, ___ P.3d ___, the respondent, Lewis B. Moon (Moon/attorney), was disciplined for his alcohol-related misconduct warranting public censure, a deferred suspension of two years and one day under conditions intended to assist the attorney in maintaining his sobriety and to protect the public, and the payment of $1,459.55 in costs. Thereafter, the complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), sought the attorney's immediate suspension based on an alcohol-related incident resulting in criminal charges and occurring before Moon I was submitted to this Court. We referred the cause to the trial panel for an immediate hearing. Before the trial panel could convene, we were informed that the attorney had been involved in a second alcohol-related incident which might result in criminal charges. The trial panel was instructed to include the circumstances surrounding this second incident in its proceeding. Raising due process concerns, Moon did not: cross examine witnesses; present any evidence on his behalf; or testify. Moon has been suspended from the practice of law until further order of this Court. The trial panel recommended that the deferred suspension be revoked and the attorney be disbarred. Clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that the respondent: failed to self-report an incident occurring during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings in which the attorney misrepresented himself as a police officer and was involved in discharging firearms while intoxicated; and, following the imposition of discipline, became intoxicated in a betting establishment, attempted to extort money from, assaulted, and battered a fellow attorney while threatening bodily harm to the same individual and his children. The Bar Association was dilatory in reporting the first transgression to this Court. Nevertheless, no due process concerns were raised by the proceeding in this matter while criminal charges related to the same conduct were pending. On de novo review, we hold that: 1) clear and convincing evidence exists of the attorney's alcohol-related misconduct involving misrepresentation of himself as an officer of the law and the discharge of firearms, first, while Moon I was pending and, second, subsequent to the imposition of discipline, escalating to extortion and assault and battery coupled with additional threats of bodily harm to a fellow attorney and his family; and 2) the attorney's actions have been dishonest, deceitful, and misleading resulting in embarrassment to the legal profession and this Court and an undermining of public confidence in the Bar Association and its members warranting disbarment and the payment of $2,415.79 in costs. RESPONDENT DISBARRED AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING. Loraine Farabow, First Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for complainant, John W. Coyle, III, Coyle Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for respondent. WATT, J.: ¶1 The respondent is before this Court for the second time in less than six months. The details of his first appearance are outlined in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Moon (Moon I), 2012 OK 77, ___ P.3d ___. In that cause, the attorney was publicly censured, ordered to pay costs, and a deferred suspension of two years and one day was imposed during which time Moon was ordered to refrain from any and all use of alcohol and illegal drugs while participating in activities intended to ensure that he stay sober.1 ¶2 The day after Moon I was promulgated, the Bar Association instituted a Rule 6.2A, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch 1, App. 1-A proceeding seeking the attorney's immediate interim suspension for actions occurring after the hearing before the trial panel in Moon I but before the cause was submitted to this Court.2 It did so based on Moon's continued misconduct involving alcohol, firearms, lying, and outrageous behavior resulting in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed in Logan County. The charges are strikingly similar to those addressed in Moon I, i.e. impersonating a police officer, discharging a firearm, and disturbing the peace while intoxicated.3 ¶3 In a separate instance, occurring after Moon I was promulgated, the attorney is alleged to have attempted to extort money from, assaulted, battered, and threatened a fellow member of the Bar and his family members with bodily harm while intoxicated. As a result, the Bar Association filed a notice of Moon's having breached the terms of his deferred suspension. ¶4 Clear and convincing evidence4 supports a determination that the respondent: failed to self-report an incident occurring during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings in which the attorney misrepresented himself as a police officer and was involved in discharging firearms while intoxicated; and, following the imposition of discipline, became intoxicated in a betting establishment, attempted to extort money from, assaulted, and battered a fellow attorney while threatening the attorney and his children with bodily harm. Although we have concerns with the manner in which the Bar Association handled the proceedings in relation to the matter arising before Moon I was submitted for our consideration, we disagree with the respondent's argument that he was denied due process during the hearing before the trial panel. In consideration of the facts and upon de novo review,5 we hold that Lewis B. Moon should be disbarred, have his name removed from the roll of attorneys, and pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $2,415.79.6 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶5 In September of this year, Moon was publicly censured and given a deferred sentence of two years and one day. During the period of suspension, Moon was ordered to: refrain from any and all use of alcohol or mind-altering substances; not partake of any illegal drugs; maintain participation in Alcoholics Anonymous, attending weekly meetings; sign and comply with conditions of a contract with Lawyers Helping Lawyers; complete any outpatient treatment program in which he was enrolled; waive all questions of confidentiality permitting notification to the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association of any default in the terms of probation or deferred suspension; and pay costs of the proceeding. ¶6 Moon I was promulgated on September 18, 2012. The following day, the respondent, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), notified this Court that Moon had been criminally charged with an alcohol-related incident occurring on May 19, 2012, some twenty-three (23) days after the hearing before the trial panel in Moon I and seventy-one (71) days before the cause was submitted to this Court. It sought Moon's immediate suspension based on the attorney's continued misconduct involving alcohol, firearms, lying, and outrageous behavior. ¶7 An order issued on September 20th directing the attorney to show cause why he should not be immediately suspended. Moon filed a response on October 5, 2012 denying that he had been drinking on May 19, 2012 or had identified himself as an ATF7 agent. On October 15, 2012, we referred the suspension application to the trial panel for an expedited hearing with instructions that inquiry be made of both the attorney and the Bar Association as to why this Court was not advised of the incident during the pendency of the prior disciplinary proceedings. Before the trial panel hearing could take place, we were informed that the attorney participated in a second alcohol-related incident which might result in criminal charges. Allegedly, the attorney was involved in a drunken altercation at the Thunder Roadhouse in which he not only battered and threatened another attorney, James Pasquali (Pasquali), but also told him he could see that Pasquali's children were put at risk. At the same time, Moon sought to extort money from Pasquali. The trial panel was instructed to include the circumstances surrounding this second incident in its hearing scheduled for October 30, 2012. The day before the hearing convened, Moon was charged with one felony and two misdemeanors felonies arising from the occurrence at the Roadhouse: attempted extortion; threatening a violent act; and assault and battery. ¶8 When the hearing convened on October 30th, Moon's counsel sought to circumvent the proceedings by stipulating that his client violated the terms of his suspended sentence, specifically by consuming alcohol on May 19th and October 7th, 2012. Counsel also agreed to his client's interim suspension as contemplated in Moon I. He argued that proceeding with the hearing would deprive Moon of his constitutional rights to due process on grounds that he could not afford to fully participate in the hearing without revealing facts and strategies necessary to defense of the pending criminal charges. Asserting his client's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, the representative exercised his right not to cross-examine witnesses or to put on a defense. Following the hearing, Moon filed a stipulation to an immediate interim suspension of two years and one day. A suspension order issued from this Court on November 8, 2012. ¶9 On November 9th, the trial panel filed its report. Recognizing the threat of substantial and irreparable public harm created by Moon's actions, it recommended that the deferred suspension of two years and one day be revoked and that the attorney be disbarred. The trial panel also responded to our direction that it inquire of the Bar Association and of Moon's attorney why we were not notified of the first incident, which occurred during the pendency of Moon I. It found that the Bar Association was not aware of the incident until August 16, 2012 and that Moon's counsel learned of the incident the following day. It was the trial panel's opinion that both counsel for the complainant and the respondent acted reasonably in not advising this Court of the incident until formal charges were filed. ¶10 We issued a briefing order on November 13, 2012 with an expectation that the briefing cycle would be completed by December 10, 2012. However, on the 7th, the respondent filed a motion for extension of time of twenty (20) days to file his brief-in-chief. Moon was granted a ten (10) day extension and the Bar Association was ordered to respond within a corresponding time period and to address issues of due process not considered in their brief in chief. The briefing cycle was completed on January 3, 2013 with the filing of the Bar Association's response brief. PRELIMINARY ISSUES ¶11 Before proceeding to consider the merits of the cause, we find it necessary to address two preliminary issues. The first is the failure of the Bar Association to immediately advise this Court of an incident in which Moon was involved during the period between the hearing in Moon I and the submission of that cause for our consideration. The second is the issue of due process raised by the respondent related to proceeding with the instant cause before criminal proceedings related to the two instances of misconduct could be prosecuted. ¶12 a) The Bar Association failed to keep this Court advised appropriately of the respondent's actions. ¶13 The hearing before the trial panel in Moon I took place on April 26, 2012. The matter was assigned for our consideration after completion of the briefing cycle on July 31st. The Bar Association first became aware of the Logan County incident on Thursday, August 16th. We harbor severe concerns about the manner in which the Bar Association handled what had to appear as a repeat offense by the same attorney of a matter pending before this Court. ¶14 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wolfe, 1997 OK 47, 937 P.2d 988 , we emphasized that, in disciplinary matters involving repeat offenders, consideration of time-related offenses is necessary to avoid the waste of judicial resources, to provide a clear picture of the respondent's problems and shortcomings, and to ensure that the appropriate discipline is imposed. We noted that grouping of complaints provides a clearer picture of an attorney's problems and better enables the assessment of proper sanctions to achieve the goals of lawyer discipline, i.e. deterrence of others and protection of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession. ¶15 This cause presents a prime example of a situation to which the Bar Association should have applied the principles outlined in Wolfe, supra. Had the Bar Association advised this Court of the attorney's "repeat performance" when it was first aware of the May incident, we could have ordered an accelerated procedure to consider the misconduct along with those matters presented to the trial panel in April. Rather than doing so, the Assistant General Counsel sought input from an array of other individuals and organizations.8 ¶16 The Bar Association should have eased its concerns by filing a simple request with this Court asking for direction. Such an inquiry would not only have relieved the mind of the Bar's prosecutor but it would have given this Court the opportunity for a complete picture of the attorney's time-related misconduct and the notice necessary to ensure that all transgressions were dealt with in a timely manner while preserving the attorney's rights of due process. ¶17 The General Counsel's office has now been reminded of the principles outlined in Wolfe. Therefore, we anticipate that these procedures will be followed in future disciplinary proceedings to avoid the confusion and waste of judicial resources occurring here. ¶18 b) Proceeding with the Bar Disciplinary Proceeding did not violate the attorney's rights to due process. ¶19 Moon asserts that his due process rights were violated because he was placed in the position of either having to defend his law license or his liberty. His argument is based on the contention that his due process rights were violated by proceeding with the disciplinary matter before all criminal charges had been resolved. The attorney argues that he could only defend against discipline by waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and by revealing defenses to criminal charges through conduct cross examination. The Bar Association counters stating that because Moon was never called upon to testify and there is no indication that any discipline imposed will be based on his assertion of the privilege, his Fifth Amendment rights were never at issue nor were they violated. Furthermore, they insist Moon was accorded all the process to which he was entitled. We agree with the Bar Association's position. ¶20 The only citation to authority contained in Moon's answer brief filed on December 18, 2012, is Spevack v. Klien, 385 U.S. 511 , 87 S. Ct. 625, 17 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1967). The attorney relies on Spevack for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment applies in lawyer disciplinary proceedings and that an attorney may not be disbarred for asserting the privilege. Likewise, both the disciplinary rules and our jurisprudence, protected Moon from having to undergo examination on matters which might tend to incriminate him.9 Furthermore, there is no indication that the trial panel's recommendation for discipline was, in any way, based on the respondent's assertion of the privilege.10 Finally, the respondent can rest assured that the discipline imposed arises solely from his actions demonstrated by the facts proven by clear and convincing evidence.11 ¶21 Our disciplinary rules specifically contemplate that grievances may be prosecuted despite pending criminal or civil litigation.12 Moon was given notice of the proceedings and of the charges filed against him. He was provided with ample opportunity to present a defense but chose not to do so. In objecting to the imposition of an interim suspension, Moon touted constitutional protections of the presumption of innocence and his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The respondent initially denied impersonating a police officer and consuming alcohol on the evening of May 19, 2012. Moon requested the very hearing in which he refused to participate.13 The respondent was represented by counsel and had every opportunity to defend himself, call witnesses, and confront the individuals testifying against him. Determinations reached herein cannot be considered conclusive on any criminal prosecution.14 ¶22 Moon's arguments that his treatment before the trial panel violated his constitutional rights is unconvincing. The attorney was denied neither his right to invoke the right against self incrimination nor any process to which he was due. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶23 It is this Court's nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate both the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of the practitioners of the law. The duty is vested solely in this department of government.15 We bear the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether misconduct has occurred and, if so, what discipline is warranted. Our determinations are made de novo.16 Neither the finding of facts of the trial panel nor its view of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses bind this Court. The recommendation is merely advisory.17 The same is true when the parties stipulate to misconduct and a recommendation for discipline.18 Before this Court will discipline an errant attorney, misconduct must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.19 To make this determination, we must be presented with a record sufficient to permit an independent, on-the-record review for the crafting of appropriate discipline.20 ¶24 Despite Moon's refusal to participate in the disciplinary proceedings in the instant cause, the record submitted is sufficient for this Court to make the required determinations. Furthermore, the issue of whether Moon was drinking alcohol during the two instances leading to criminal charges is unquestioned. Moon's counsel stipulated to the same and to his client's being subject to a two year and one day suspension under the circumstances of the two pending criminal cases.21 Incident Occurring During Pendency of Moon I May 2012, Logan County ¶25 Belinda and James Roe live with their children in a home located in Logan County. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on May 19, 2012, they began hearing machine gun fire coming from an adjacent residence. When the shooting had been going on for one to two hours, the Roes called the property owner. They were advised that it was the renter and his attorney who were doing the shooting. At 10:00 p.m., the Roes decided to go next door and ask that the shooting cease as the couple and their children were getting ready to retire for the night. ¶26 When the Roes pulled up, two obviously intoxicated men approached the truck. The taller of the two introduced himself either as L.B. Moon or L.B. Boone. His speech was so slurred that he was difficult to understand. This same man identified himself as being "with the ATF"22 calling himself an "agent."23 The Roes left after being assured that the shooting would stop. However, they had no more than arrived home when the automatic weapon began discharging again at which time they called 9-1-1. Because of concerns regarding an extremely intoxicated individual representing himself as an ATF agent while discharging an automatic weapon, the Roes called Washington, D.C. that evening to verify Moon's status. They were told that there was no ATF agent by the name of L.B. Moon.24 When the Roes went to the Logan County Sheriff's Department to give their statements, a deputy sheriff made similar inquiries and received the same information, there was no ATF Agent named either L.B. Boone or L.B. Moon.25 ¶27 Two deputy sheriffs were sent out to investigate the incident by the Logan County Sheriff's Office in response to the Roes' 9-1-1 call. One officer testified that he heard shots as he approached the property from at least two miles away and that when he arrived there were as many as two hundred brass casings lying on the ground.26 When Moon exited the residence on the property and approached the deputy sheriff, he was agitated, cursing, and threatening to sue the officer and the sheriff's department. Although he did not identify himself as an ATF agent to the deputy sheriff, he did say he would see that he and his employer appeared on CNN and the front page of the newspaper.27 During this occurrence, Moon appeared to be highly intoxicated. The attorney: smelled strongly of alcohol; was unsteady on his feet, swaying back and forth; and had slurred speech.28 ¶28 The incident occurred on May 19th, resulting in charges being filed on September 18, 2012.29 Although the Bar Association was aware of the incident in August,30 it did not report the same to this Court. Moon's counsel was not advised of the event before then as his client had not revealed it to him. Incident Occurring After Moon I was Promulgated October 2012, Oklahoma County ¶29 James J. Pasquali (Pasquali) is an attorney practicing primarily in Oklahoma County. On October 7, 2012, he decided to stop by a bar and off-track betting establishment, Thunder Roadhouse (Roadhouse). When he entered the Roadhouse, Pasquali recognized several people, one of which was Moon, who appeared to have been drinking. After greeting Moon, Pasquali offered to buy him a drink at which point Moon asked for a vodka and Red Bull.31 Pasquali then walked away from Moon and Moon's companion, James Randall Dodd (Dodd). ¶30 Some time later, Dodd and Moon joined Pasquali. Dodd confronted Pasquali telling him that he had a "problem" with him and demanding the return of a fee of one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) paid to Pasquali for the representation of Dodd's son. At this point, Moon entered the conversation in an extremely aggressive and threatening manner. He threatened to kill Pasquali and have his daughters raped and killed. Moon told Pasquali that if he went to the police, he would kill him. He grabbed Pasquali's collar and threatened to run a pen through his neck and his remains through a shredder.32 The matter only began to diffuse when the bartender approached the group and asked if everything was all right.33 Pasquali was able then to leave the Roadhouse. ¶31 Pasquali, in shock at Moon's treatment and scared for himself and his family, called his law partner who advised him to contact the police. He did so along with the Oklahoma County District Attorney. When the police arrived, Moon and Dodd had left the premises. On October 29, 2012, Moon was charged in Oklahoma County with attempted extortion, threatening to perform an act of violence, and assault and battery. ENHANCEMENT, MITIGATION, AND APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE ¶32 The trial panel recommended Moon be disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. The Bar Association agrees and requests the payment of costs in prosecuting the proceeding. We are the ultimate decision makers concerning attorney discipline and are not bound by the trial panel's findings, recommendations, and conclusions.34 ¶33 It is significant that this second occasion for discipline involves the same type of misconduct as that which was encompassed within the prior offenses - alcohol abuse, discharging of firearms, and Moon's misrepresentation of himself as an officer of the law. Perhaps more concerning is the fact that the attorney's actions seem to have escalated to the point of engaging in a physical assault and battery while attempting to extort money from a fellow attorney, and in threatening to do much worse, i.e. saying he would "kill" the attorney and stating he could arrange an assault on the attorney's family, including the rape of his daughters. ¶34 Incredibly, Moon argues that, in imposing discipline, we should consider leniency based upon his history of alcoholism. The attorney experienced "leniency" when he was publicly censured and given a deferred suspension in Moon I. Today, we must consider Moon's patterns of misconduct as a factor in tailoring the appropriate discipline for the respondent's misdeeds.35 This Court takes seriously the indifference of attorneys to their wrongdoing.36 ¶35 Even before the first case could be submitted to this Court, Moon was drinking and handling firearms while intoxicated. After the suspension issued, he battered another attorney and attempted to extort money while threatening the attorney and his family. It is perfectly clear that Moon has little regard for himself, no interest in how his actions affect the public perception of the legal profession as a whole, and no respect for this Court nor understanding of the leniency shown to him in Moon I. ¶36 Moon has gone well beyond violating his suspended sentence by repeatedly abusing alcohol. There is clear and convincing evidence37 that Moon was abusing alcohol shortly after he testified in the original disciplinary proceeding and that he continued imbibing after the cause was finally submitted to the Court. He not only has engaged in the activity on more than one occasion, he did so while his original disciplinary proceeding was pending before this Court. At the hearing before the trial panel in Moon I, the attorney specifically stated, under oath, the he would "definitely" not represent himself as an officer of the law in the future.38 Yet, it is clear that Moon did so when he stated he was with the ATF at the time of the first incident. Apparently, he did not "self-report" his breach of the conditions of his original discipline to: his attorney, Lawyers Helping Lawyers, the Bar Association, or this Court. Having given Moon the benefit of the doubt in Moon I, we now have no confidence in his truthfulness, integrity, or commitment to sobriety. The attorney is an embarrassment to the legal profession, the Bar Association, and this Court. He has undermined public confidence in his fellow legal practitioners. ¶37 It is apparent that our leniency in Moon I, in which we allowed the attorney to continue the practice of law with the promise of a lengthy suspension should he violate the terms imposed concerning alcohol use, did little to impress Moon with the necessity of compliance if he sought to continue practicing law. Therefore, we must deliver discipline sufficient to persuade the attorney that such conduct will not be tolerated.39 Currently, the attorney stands interim suspended from the practice of law pending resolution of the instant cause. When previous sanctions have failed to correct errant conduct, this Court, in carrying out its duty to protect the public, has no choice but to substantially increase the severity of the sanction. Anything less and we would be deserting our constitutionally-vested power as overseer of the legal profession.40 ¶38 Although mitigating circumstances may be considered in evaluating both the attorney's conduct and in assessing the appropriate discipline,41 the attorney's failure to participate in the hearing before the trial panel leaves us with little that can be said in mitigation. Furthermore, Moon has been charged with more than misuse of alcohol which would have been sufficient for his immediate suspension for a period of two years and one day under the terms of Moon I. Here, the clear and convincing evidence supports the allegations that he: engaged in shooting firearms while intoxicated; identified himself as a federal ATF agent; attempted to extort money from and assaulted and battered a fellow lawyer; threatened the same attorney with death; and, even more reprehensible, told his fellow Bar member that he could have his daughter raped. We are convinced that vindication of the legitimate interests served by Oklahoma's bar disciplinary regime requires imposition of the most severe of sanctions, disbarment, together with the payment of costs of $2,415.79. CONCLUSION ¶39 Testimony in Moon I made it clear that the respondent had, in the past, served well a contingent of clients suffering legal problems. Several colleagues and Judges before whom he appeared felt certain that Moon had conquered his demons. We were of the same opinion. However, Moon admits: having "fell off the wagon with a thud;" drinking alcohol on May 19, 2012 and October 7, 2012; and having engaged in profane and insulting behavior while intoxicated.42 ¶40 The respondent's actions in May and September of last year make it clear that allowing him to further practice law would be damaging to the public perception of the legal profession as a whole. The rule of law requires substantial disciplinary action. Due to his history with alcohol, guns, lying, and outrageous behavior and in order to protect the public and uphold the standards of the legal profession, the respondent, Lewis B. Moon, is ordered disbarred and is further directed to pay costs of the proceedings in the amount of $2,415.79 within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final. RESPONDENT DISBARRED AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING. COLBERT, C.J., REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, WATT, WINCHESTER, TAYLOR, COMBS, GURICH, JJ. - CONCUR EDMONDSON, J. - CONCURS IN RESULT FOOT