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

Citation: 

Docket Number: SCBD-5739

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BELLAMY  STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BELLAMY 2012 OK 20 Case Number: SCBD-5739 Decided: 03/06/2012 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. THOMAS PRADE BELLAMY, Respondent. RULE 6 BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint pursuant to Rule 6 against the respondent, alleging three counts of professional misconduct concerning neglect of client matters and failure to respond to the grievances. A panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal concluded that he violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 8.1(b) and 8.4(a)(c) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 3-A, and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, and recommended that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for two years and one day and be charged with payment of the costs of the proceeding. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY; ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. Ted Rossier, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Complainant Thomas Prade Bellamy, Blair, Oklahoma, pro se. WINCHESTER, J. ¶1 On March 17, 2011, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed three counts of professional misconduct against the Respondent, Thomas Prade Bellamy, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). The Respondent was served with the complaint and filed an entry of appearance and request for additional time. On April 19, 2011, the Chief Justice granted the extension of time. Subsequently, the Respondent failed to file an answer and on July 29, 2011, the Complainant filed a motion to deem allegations admitted. A hearing was held on August 2, 2011, before a Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal ("PRT"). The Respondent was properly notified, but failed to appear. ¶2 The Trial Panel issued its report on September 12, 2011, adopting the facts contained in the OBA's complaint and recommending suspension of two years and one day as the appropriate discipline. Count I - The Locklear Complaint ¶3 The Bar Association alleges the following facts in Count I of the complaint. In June 2009, the Respondent was hired by Robert Locklear to handle the probate of his mother's will. Locklear paid $1,250 and provided the Repsondent with original estate documents including a will, real estate deed and title abstract. Since accepting the fee, Respondent has failed to communicate with Locklear and done no work on the case. In a deposition given by the Respondent on July 16, 2010, he reported that he was "unable to locate the material that Mr. Locklear turned over." He indicated he would locate the files the following weekend and provide them to the Bar investigator, but to date he has failed to do so. Count II - The Rushano Complaint ¶4 The Bar Association alleges the following facts in Count II of the complaint. Respondent was hired by Paula Rushano in September 2006 to represent her in a boundary dispute and to file a suit to quiet title to Rushano's residence. She paid Respondent $1,030. The Respondent did perform some work on the cases, but was slow in acting and caused the cases to be delayed for two years. During this time, Rushano had difficulty contacting the Respondent and he failed to provide her with status updates or billing statements. In October 2008, Rushano met with the Respondent at his office and he refunded the entire fee she had paid him. Two days later, she filed a grievance against the Respondent with the Bar Association. The Respondent later agreed to complete the case at no charge to "keep the peace" with Rushano. She agreed, but Respondent once again failed to communicate and continued to neglect the matter. Rushano filed a second grievance against the Respondent in August 2009. In February 2010, opposing counsel in the quiet title action contacted Respondent with a settlement offer. Respondent stated he would consult his client and provide a response. However, Respondent failed to take further action and has had no subsequent contact with his client or opposing counsel. Count III ¶5 Count III alleges the Respondent failed to properly and adequately respond to the Locklear Grievance. After the Respondent failed to answer informal requests, the Bar Association opened a formal investigation on May 12, 2010. Respondent was notified of his duty to respond within 20 days, but failed to do so. He was sent two additional notices in June before being subpoenaed in July. Only then did he comply. His deposition was taken on July 16, 2010, at the Bar Association offices. During the deposition, Respondent acknowledged his failure to respond to correspondence he had received from the General Counsel's office. ¶6 The Trial Panel made findings of fact as set out in the complaint. Testimony before the Trial Panel and exhibits offered constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondent took his clients' money, failed to properly represent them, abandoned their cases and perhaps most reprehensible of all, failed to return their original documents so they could pursue other remedies. The Respondent also failed to cooperate with the Bar Association and did nothing to protect his license. ¶7 The Trial Panel found in regard to Count I that Respondent committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 1.11, 1.32, 1.43, 1.154 and 8.4(a)(c)5 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 3-A and Rule 1.36 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. With respect to Count II, the Trial Panel found that Respondent committed professional conduct in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(a), ORPC; and Rule 1.3 RGDP. The Trial Panel found that with respect to Count III, Respondent committed professional misconduct in violation of Rules 8.1(b)7 and 8.4(a)8, ORPC; and Rules 1.3 and 5.29, RGDP and as a result warrants discipline. The Trial panel recommended to this Court a suspension of two years and one day. The Complainant agreed with the Trial panel's recommendation as an appropriate level of discipline for Respondent's professional misconduct. The Respondent did not file a brief and the Complainant waived filing a reply brief. Standard of Review ¶8 This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Bar disciplinary matters. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Funk, 2005 OK 26, ¶3, 114 P.3d 427 , 430. Our standard of review is de novo, in determining if the Bar Association proved its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Trial Panel are advisory, rather than binding. Protecting the public and purification of the Bar are the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings rather than punishment of the offending attorney. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Chappell, 2004 OK 41, ¶23, 93 P.3d 25 , 31. After reviewing the record, we have determined that the Trial Panel's findings and conclusions are supported and the allegations of misconduct are established by clear and convincing evidence. Discipline ¶9 Appropriate discipline is determined by analyzing the level of discipline imposed in other similar cases. The complainant offers State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Edwards, 2011 OK 3, 248 P.3d 350 for guidance. Like the Respondent, Edwards also neglected client matters, failed to keep clients informed and failed to cooperate with the Bar Association once grievances were filed. Edwards was suspended from the practice of law for two years and one day. The case at hand also bears striking similarities to State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517. Whitebrook also accepted fees for probate work and then failed to complete the cases. The Court found suspension of two years and one day to be the proper discipline in this case as well. ¶10 In the case at hand, the Respondent has not been previously disciplined. The trial panel report and the Complainant's brief-in-chief were sent to the Respondent, yet he has repeatedly failed to respond. His actions show a blatant disregard for the disciplinary process and for the Court. At his deposition, Respondent also assured the General Counsel's office that he would hand over Mr. Locklear's documents to them, yet he failed to do so. When asked the last time he had spoken with his client, the Respondent replied, "probably about 18 months." He was then asked if he could give a reason for his lack of communication, to which he simply answered, "no." Assistant General Counsel Rossier continued, "Did you do any work in the case at all to earn your fee?" To which the Respondent replied, "I have not." Respondent's blatant disregard for his client and the Court warrant suspension of two years and one day. Application to Assess Costs ¶11 On September 12, 2011, the Complainant filed its application to assess costs against the Respondent in the sum of $608.04, pursuant to Rules 6.13 and 6.16, RGDP, 5 O.S. ch. 1, app. 1-A (1991). The motion to assess costs is granted and the Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding in the amount of $608.04 within 90 days after this opinion becomes final. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY; ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. CONCUR: COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, GURICH, JJ. COMBS, J. DISSENTING, WITH WHOM TAYLOR, C.J., JOINS: I WOULD DISBAR THIS RESPONDENT. WATT, J.: NOT PARTICIPATING FOOT