Case Title: STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DOWNES

Citation: 

Docket Number: SCBD-7128

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DOWNES  STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DOWNES 2022 OK 65 Case Number: SCBD-7128 Decided: 06/21/2022 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant, v. SEAN PATRICK DOWNES, Respondent. BAR DISCIPLINE PROCEEDING ¶0 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, charged the respondent, Sean Patrick Downes, with three counts of professional misconduct associated with the attorney's alleged conduct concerning conversion of client funds, lack of communication, and dilatory conduct. The trial panel recommended disbarment, and that costs be imposed. Upon de novo review, we hold that the respondent's conduct warrants disbarment and the payment of costs. ATTORNEY DISBARRED; COSTS IMPOSED. Katherine M. Ogden, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Sheila J. Naifeh, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent, Sean Patrick Downes, (respondent/attorney/Downes) with three counts of professional misconduct. The Bar Association alleged that the respondent's actions involved: conversion of client funds, unfairness, lack of communication with clients and the Bar Association, lack of diligence, and lack of adequate advisement to clients. ¶2 The Bar Association argues that this conduct was in violation of Rules 1.1 [Competence],1 1.3[Diligence],2 1.4 [Communication],3 1.8(a) [Conflict of Interest/Business Transactions],4 1.15 [Safekeeping of Property],5 3.2 [Expediting Litigation],6 and 8.4 (a) [Misconduct] of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct,7 and Rule 1.3 [Discipline for Acts Contrary to Prescribed Standards of Conduct],8 and 5.2 [Investigations],9 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. ¶3 After an evidentiary hearing the trial panel recommended disbarment. The recommendation was enhanced because the respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for one year in State ex. rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Downes, 2005 OK 33, 121 P.3d 1058 . It also recommended the payment of the costs of these proceedings. Upon a de novo review,10 we hold that the respondent's conduct warrants disbarment and the imposition of costs in the amount of $4,357.54 to be paid within 90 days of the date of this opinion. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶4 In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction.11 To keep the investigatory and adjudicatory functions separate in bar disciplinary proceedings, this Court has assigned limited duties to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT).12 In performing their roles, the Bar and PRT act as an aid to the Court, but do not act on behalf of the Court.13 We are not bound by agreed findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline.14 Rather, the ultimate responsibility for imposition of professional discipline is solely within the purview of this Court.15 ¶5 In considering the record before us, as well as the recommendations of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, our standard of review is de novo.16 Before we may impose discipline upon an attorney, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence.17 The function of disciplinary proceedings is not punishment. The purpose of discipline is to gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession.18 FACTS AND ALLEGED MISCONDUCT ¶6 The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Oklahoma in 1997. He is a solo practitioner in Sapulpa, Oklahoma. In 2005, the Court suspended the respondent for one year from the practice of law for: 1) having a sexual relationship with a client during a divorce representation; 2) sending a threatening letter to the husband's divorce counsel; 3) threatening counsel with litigation for filing a grievance against him; 4) commingling and converting a client's retainer; and 5) failing to respond to the Bar regarding a grievance. ¶7 Although it is not clear precisely how many, the record reflects that the respondent has had other informal complaints previously filed which resulted in diversionary classes relating to client neglect, communication, and law office management, along with at least two letters of admonition. On May 24, 2022, the Court suspended the respondent for noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal education requirements for the year 2021. COUNT 1 OF MISCONDUCT: THE SHILES/ROBERTSON GRIEVANCE ¶8 The first grievance concerns loan and business transactions with a client. In November of 2008, the respondent borrowed $130,000.00 from his client, Ken Robertson, for the purchase and remodeling of an office building in Sapulpa. The respondent did not make timely payments on the loan. On March 5, 2009, the respondent received a settlement check on Robertson's behalf from the sale of land in Texas, deposited the check in his IOLTA account, and without the client's knowledge, "borrowed" another $80,000.00 from the settlement funds. ¶9 Subsequently, the respondent confessed to the client that he had taken the funds, and in November of 2009, the respondent executed a new loan agreement for $95,000.00 to memorialize the promise to repay the funds taken without permission. The combined amount of funds which the respondent owed the client was now $205,726.96. The respondent again failed to make the required, regular payments. ¶10 The client hired attorney, Jerry Shiles, in an attempt to collect on the funds the respondent owed him. The attempt to collect culminated in a grievance filed on Robertson's behalf in January of 2019, and the client died on February 8, 2020. As of the filing of the complaint on September 21, 2021, the balance due to Robertson was approximately $103,720.88. The evidence and admissions at trial reflects that the respondent converted client funds for his own use, and engaged in multiple business transactions with a client wherein he had a conflict of interest. He also failed to take proper steps to ensure fairness for the client. COUNT II OF MISCONDUCT: THE LANHAM GRIEVANCE ¶11 David Lanham hired the respondent on September 15, 2018, to expunge a criminal record from thirty years ago. Apparently the respondent filed a motion for expungement on October 9, 2018, but nothing further occurred on the matter. Lanham filed a grievance on April 22, 2019, and alleged that the respondent stopped all communication with him and never completed the expungement. ¶12 The respondent denied the allegations. He also took over two years to provide any supporting documentation to the Bar regarding information concerning the filing of the expungement, and Lanaham's payment of $800.00 for an expungement that never happened. At trial, the primary focus of this grievance was the respondent's failure to cooperate in resolving the matter. COUNT III: THE GILMORE GRIEVANCE ¶13 Ronald Gilmore hired the respondent in May of 2012 to file a probate after Gilmore's daughter and son-in-law were killed in a car crash. The decedents left behind Gilmore's five-year-old granddaughter. Respondent filed the probate in Payne County on April 3, 2012, but, according to Gilmore, the respondent failed to timely resolve the matter, and failed to communicate with him thereafter. The respondent admitted that the case took too long, but blamed part of the delay on strategy of allowing a foreclosure of the decedent's real property first to protect the assets of the estate. After years of unexplained and unreasonable delay, Gilmore fired the respondent in July of 2019, and hired another lawyer. The matter was then resolved in about a year. DISCIPLINE IMPOSED ¶14 Discipline is fashioned to coincide with the discipline imposed upon other lawyers for similar acts of professional misconduct.19 Although this Court strives to be evenhanded and fair in disciplinary matters, discipline must be decided on a case-by-case basis because each situation involves unique transgressions and mitigating factors.20 Discipline should be sufficient to persuade the attorney that such conduct will not be tolerated.21 Mitigating circumstances may be considered in evaluating both the attorney's conduct and assessing the appropriate discipline.22 ¶15 This Court is the sole arbiter of bar discipline.23 We are free to attribute as much weight to the trial panel's recommendations as we see fit.24 However, under the facts presented, given the respondent's misconduct, his prior disciplinary history, and the discipline administered in similar cases,25 we agree with the PRT that the respondent's conduct warrants disbarment, and the payment of $4,357.54 in costs to be paid within 90 days of the date of this opinion. CONCLUSION ¶16 The responsibility of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish but rather to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a purpose of safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession.26 The nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of legal practitioners is solely vested in this Court.27 ¶17 It is our difficult duty to withdraw the license to practice law if necessary to protect the interest of the public, the legal profession and this tribunal.28 Upon a de novo review of the record, we determine that the clear and convincing evidence warrants the respondent's disbarment, and the payment of $4,357.54 in costs to be paid within 90 days of the date of this opinion. ATTORNEY DISBARRED; COSTS IMPOSED. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR FOOT