Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SPILMAN

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SPILMAN  IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SPILMAN 2010 OK 70 Case Number: 108544 Decided: 10/05/2010 As Corrected: October 20, 2010 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SYLVIA MCCORMICK SPILMAN FOR EXPUNGEMENT AND SEALING OF RECORDS. SYLVIA MCCORMICK SPILMAN, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent. APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF ¶0 Petitioner is a practicing lawyer who was convicted of bribing a State's witness, allowed to resign from the Bar pending disciplinary proceedings, later reinstated to membership in the Bar, and after receiving a pardon from the Governor successfully had her district court criminal records sealed, and now seeks to seal and expunge her Oklahoma Supreme Court and Bar Association disciplinary files as well as the present proceeding. The Oklahoma Bar Association objects to the relief sought by Petitioner. We hold that ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED AND APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF DENIED Sylvia McCormick Spilman, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Pro se. Loraine Dillinder Farabow, First Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Oklahoma Bar Association. EDMONDSON, C.J. ¶1 An attorney, Sylvia McCormick Spilman, seeks to seal and expunge the records in her Bar Association disciplinary files. We hold that her request is not within the scope of the statutory authority relied upon, but involves this Court's original and exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the Bar and the practice of law. We assume jurisdiction in this matter because the requested relief is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court, and we issue an opinion because the application presents a first-impression issue. ¶2 In 1995, Spilman was convicted by a jury of bribing a State's witness, sentenced to one year in the state prison, served eight weeks, and was released on parole. ¶3 In 2007, the District Court for Tulsa County granted Spilman's application to seal and expunge her criminal bribery file, CRF-1994-920, and two other criminal files, CF-1994-180 and CF-79-693. ¶4 In July 2010, Spilman filed in this Court an "Application for Expungement and Sealing Records" which requests that the records be sealed in her resignation proceeding, reinstatement proceeding, and the present proceeding. ¶5 Spilman relies upon Persons authorized to file a motion for expungement, as provided herein, must be within one of the following categories: . . . . (8) [t]he offense was a nonviolent felony, as defined in Section 571 of title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, the person has received a full pardon for the offence, the person has not been convicted of any other misdemeanor or felony, no felony or misdemeanor charge are pending against the person, and at least ten (10) years have passed since the conviction; . . . . Spilman's Application at page 2, paragraph 2 . The correctness of the adjudication by the District Court of Tulsa County in issuing its order granting Spilman's request to seal and expunge criminal records is not before the Court in this proceeding. The present proceeding is not an appeal from the order of the District Court for Tulsa County.15 The first question presented for our review is whether 22 O.S.Supp. §§ 18, 19 apply to Supreme Court Bar disciplinary proceedings. ¶6 The first paragraph of 22 O.S.Supp.2009 § 19 shows that the § 18 remedy is provided by a district court. A. Any person qualified under Section 18 of this title may petition the district court of the district in which the arrest information pertaining to the person is located for the sealing of all or any part of the record, except basic identification information. 22 O.S.Supp.2002 § 19 (A). Section 19 refers to a district court order appealed to the Supreme Court, but contains no reference to the Supreme Court issuing an order sealing Bar disciplinary records.16 Section 19 does state that a district court's order "shall specify those agencies to which such order shall apply." 22 O.S.Supp. 2009 § 19 (C). However, such language may not be read so broadly as to include the Oklahoma Supreme Court as one of those "agencies." ¶7 When the term "agency" (or agencies) is used to name a government entity the term is usually17 not considered to include the Oklahoma Supreme Court or any other entity exercising judicial power. The State Constitution designates the three departments of governmental power as Legislative, Executive, and Judicial (Okla. Const. Art. 4 § 1), and the Supreme Court possesses judicial power (Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 2) which is exercised by an original jurisdiction proceeding in the nature of general superintending control over "Agencies, Commissions, and Boards created by law." Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4 (emphasis added). Consistent with this concept is the common use of "agency" to identify Executive Branch entities which utilize a statutory administrative procedure and which possess quasi-judicial authority in some circumstances.18 Generally, records of a court are in that court's custody and control;19 and while the Supreme Court has superintending control over district courts, no district court has superintending control over the Supreme Court or other district courts.20 Thus, the usual construction of "agencies" in § 19 would not include the Oklahoma Supreme Court as an agency whose records are subject to control by a district court. ¶8 Section 19 states that "[u]pon entry of an order to seal the records, or any part thereof, the subject actions shall be deemed never to have occurred . . . ." and a record sealed pursuant to § 18, "if not unsealed within ten (10) years of the expungement order, may be obliterated or destroyed at the end of the ten-year period." 22 O.S.Supp.2009 §19 (D), (K). However, in a Bar disciplinary matter this Court's scrutiny of a lawyer's conduct is not limited to either a ten- or twenty- year-period 21 preceding the filing of the complaint in this Court. ¶9 A lawyer's record of prior professional conduct is always open to scrutiny by this Court when he or she is before the Court in a professional disciplinary matter. We have explained that there is no equitable statute of limitations in Bar disciplinary proceedings and that "[t]his Court does not take lightly charges against a member of the Bar regardless of when they occurred." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Dobbs, 2004 OK 46, ¶ 110, 94 P.3d 31 , 71, emphasis added.22 We have explained that "[i]n imposing discipline, the court evaluates the entire record of an attorney's professional conduct and scrutinizes the record to determine whether the alleged offenses are a mere blotch on an otherwise untainted career, or just one long series of ethically questionable actions." Dobbs, at ¶ 111. A lawyer's record of professional conduct of more than thirty years without a disciplinary action has been used as a mitigating factor in imposing discipline. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Berger, 2008 OK 91, ¶¶ 15-16, 202 P.3d 822 , 826. Thus, a lawyer's record of professional missteps as well a lawyer's record without missteps are important to this Court's assessment of the appropriate discipline. ¶10 This Court has also explained that "[t]he regulation of licensure, ethics, and discipline of legal practitioners is a nondelegable, constitutional responsibility solely vested in this Court in the exercise of our exclusive jurisdiction." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Wilburn, 2010 OK 25, ¶ 4, 236 P.2d 79, 80. Our nondelegable and exclusive jurisdiction in Bar matters has been stated often by this Court,23 and it includes every aspect24 of a disciplinary inquiry involving the authority of the Oklahoma Bar Association, and our jurisdiction herein is not a novel principle unknown to the Legislature when it crafted 22 O.S. §§ 18 & 19.25 Sections 18 and 19 express no indication of any intent by the Legislature to encroach upon the Court's jurisdiction in Bar matters. ¶11 The Court's need for a complete record of a lawyer's professional conduct in a disciplinary action and the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court in Bar disciplinary matters explains, in part, why examination of a lawyer's conduct is not necessarily limited to the ten years preceding the filing of the disciplinary complaint in this Court, and why 22 O.S. §§ 18 & 19 should not apply to Bar proceedings. We conclude that 22 O.S.Supp.2009 §§ 18, 19 do not apply to Bar disciplinary records in this Court, and thus do not apply to Spilman's disciplinary proceedings. ¶12 The Court recognizes that it has implemented §§ 18 and 19 for the purpose of sealing and expunging civil appellate records that are related to sealed and expunged district court proceedings. Expungement of records Persons who have obtained an order of expungement from a district court, pursuant to Title 22, Sections 18 and 19, may seek expungement of related civil appellate records in this Court for retained cases as well as those that stand or stood assigned to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Those persons who seek a district court's expungement by appeal or writ may seek this court's order directing the clerk to keep certain materials sealed pending the outcome of the case. 12 O.S.Supp.2009 Ch. 15, App. 1, Okla. Sup. Ct. R. 1.260 (emphasis added). Both Rule 1.261 and Rule 1.262 refer to "appellate records" to be, or which have been, expunged by the Court.26 While an appeal is, for several purposes, a continuation of the proceeding commenced in the lower court,27 a Bar disciplinary record is created in a sui generis proceeding28 by the exercise of the Court's original, not appellate, jurisdiction;29 and substantive differences exist between this Court's exercise of general civil appellate jurisdiction and the original jurisdiction that is exercised in a Bar matter.30 ¶13 We conclude that Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules 1.260, 1.261, and 1.262 do not apply to Bar disciplinary records. The records in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Spilman, 1995 OK 60, 898 P.2d 152 and In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Spilman, 2004 OK 79, 104 P.3d 576 , were not created in the process of civil appeals and Rules 1.260, 1.261, and 1.262 do not apply to them.31 ¶14 Once a formal complaint has been brought, it is this Court's constitutional duty to ensure that the goals of lawyer discipline are carried out. These goals include "(1) preservation of public trust and confidence in the Bar by strict enforcement of the profession's integrity, (2) protection of the public and the courts and (3) deterrence of like behavior by both the disciplined lawyer and by other members of the Bar . . . ." State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Caldwell, ¶15 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Trower, . . . the facts still remain that it is not for the sake of the individual member of the legal profession, nor the Oklahoma Bar Association, that men and women are licensed to engage in the practice of law. It is for the benefit of the public. Id We have explained that a lawyer's continued good moral character is required throughout the lawyer's lifetime. ¶16 A Court-created Bar disciplinary procedure that would mirror ¶17 In summary, we assume original jurisdiction and deny the application to seal and expunge records in Petitioner's Bar Disciplinary proceedings. The request to seal and expunge the record in the present proceeding is also denied. We hold that ¶18 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT