Case Title: State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Henderson

Citation: 

Docket Number: SCBD-4434

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Henderson  State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Henderson 1999 OK 29 977 P.2d 1096 70 OBJ 1134 Case Number: SCBD-4434 Decided: 04/13/1999 Mandate Issued: 06/09/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. JOEL A. HENDERSON, Respondent. [977 P.2d 1096] ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE. ¶0 Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, brought reciprocal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Disciplinary Proceedings, following Respondent's suspension from the practice of law in Colorado for three years. Respondent was directed by this Court to show cause why like discipline should not be imposed in Oklahoma and, having presented nothing to support a claim that the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court, to which Respondent stipulated, do not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma, nor evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline, reciprocal discipline is imposed. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OPINION. [977 P.2d 1097] Loraine D. Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Joel A. Henderson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Respondent, Pro Se. HARGRAVE, V.C.J. ¶1 Joel A. Henderson, OBA # 10328 was admitted to the practice of law in Oklahoma on October 6, 1983. His official roster address is listed as 1336 S.W. 24th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73108. Respondent now lives in Oklahoma City and is licensed to practice in Texas and Colorado. Respondent recently was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for a period of three years, and is before this Court on a summary disciplinary proceeding by the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) pursuant to the reciprocal disciplinary provisions of "(a) It is the duty of a lawyer licensed in Oklahoma to notify the General Counsel whenever discipline for lawyer misconduct has been imposed upon him/her in another jurisdiction, within twenty (20) days of the final order of discipline, and failure to report shall itself be grounds for discipline. b) When a lawyer has been adjudged guilty of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding, except contempt proceedings, by the highest court of another State or by a Federal Court, the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association may cause to be transmitted to the Chief Justice a certified copy of such adjudication and the Chief Justice shall direct the lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court at a time certain, not less than ten (10) days after mailing of notice, and show cause, if any he/she has, why he/she should not be disciplined. The documents shall constitute the charge and shall be prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described. The lawyer may submit a certified copy of transcript of the evidence taken in the trial tribunal of the other jurisdiction to support his/her claim that the finding therein was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline which may be imposed upon him/her, a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The General Counsel may respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting a recommendation of discipline." ¶2 Respondent did not notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of his suspension as required by Rule 7.7 ¶3 In his "Show Cause Reply, the Respondent submitted the Stipulation of Facts upon which the Colorado suspension was imposed. The complaints in the Colorado proceedings involved Respondent's neglect of matters entrusted to him, failure to communicate with clients and inform them of the status of legal matters for which he was retained. ¶4 Under Rule 7.7, disciplinary action in another jurisdiction forms the basis for this Court's discipline of a lawyer and, the burden of proof is on the lawyer to support his claim that the finding was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma. Respondent's letter entitled "Show Cause Reply" contains no argument or citation of authority on either issue. He does not argue that the Colorado findings were not supported by the evidence - indeed, he stipulated to the facts on which discipline was imposed - and he makes no argument that the finding of the Colorado court does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma. ¶5 Respondent urges this Court, however, that some disciplinary action short of suspension should be imposed, or that if a period of suspension is imposed, it should be for less than the three year period of suspension imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. He offers, in mitigation, a detailed account of the numerous personal problems plaguing him during the time period involving the complaints in Colorado. The same facts in mitigation were presented to the Colorado Supreme Court, which imposed the lesser discipline of suspension, rather than disbarment. ¶6 The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are substantially similar to the Oklahoma rules. Respondent's stipulated conduct, which resulted in a three-year suspension by the Colorado Supreme Court, would form the basis for similar discipline in Oklahoma. A three-year suspension is within the range of discipline that this Court has imposed for similar violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. ¶7 The order suspending Respondent in Colorado is prima facie evidence that [ 977 P.2d 1099 ] Respondent committed the acts complained of and stipulated to. Respondent narrowly escaped being disbarred in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court recognized that Respondent essentially had abandoned his law practice and his clients. Respondent has presented nothing that supports a claim that the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court adjudging him guilty of misconduct "does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma" under Rule 7.7, nor has he offered "evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline" under that rule. The acts upon which Respondent stands suspended in Colorado warrant like suspension in Oklahoma. It is so ordered. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OPINION. ¶8 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT