Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF DEBACKER

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF DEBACKER  IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF DEBACKER 2008 OK 17 184 P.3d 506 Case Number: SCBD-5287 Decided: 02/26/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DEBACKER, TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION AND TO THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDING ¶0 The petitioner, Michael L. DeBacker, applied for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after he was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys in 1980 for non-payment of dues. DeBacker has lived and worked in Ohio since 1979, where he was employed by a large corporation. DeBacker was not licensed in Ohio but was "registered" as a corporate lawyer under the Ohio Supreme Court Rules, and he represented that he was licensed in Oklahoma. After an investigative reporter contacted DeBacker regarding a story about unlicensed corporate counsels who worked for American corporations, DeBacker resigned from his position as General Counsel and reported himself to the Ohio Supreme Court. Ohio entered into a consent agreement with DeBacker in which it agreed not to file a complaint against him for all of the years he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if he avoided any conduct after April 10, 2007 which constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The trial panel of the Oklahoma Bar Association recommended reinstatement. Upon de novo review, we hold that the petitioner: 1) engaged in the unauthorized practice of law for twenty-seven years and his conduct encompassed misrepresentation; 2) should remain suspended until April 10, 2008; and 3) shall pay costs of $1,553.49 as well as past bar dues which total $4,425.00. Payment in the amount of $5,978.49 is due before April 10, 2008. REINSTATEMENT GRANTED AND DEFERRED; COSTS AND PAYMENT OF PAST DUES IMPOSED. Janis Hubbard, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Larry Derryberry, Pete G. Serrata, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 A former member of the Oklahoma Bar Association seeks reinstatement pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. Supp. 2002, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 The petitioner, Michael L. DeBacker, graduated from Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas in December of 1972. After he graduated and successfully completed the bar examination, DeBacker became a member of the Kansas Bar Association. He began working for the Federal Trade Commission's Kansas City Regional Office as General Attorney-Trade Regulation. ¶3 In November of 1975, the petitioner left Kansas and moved to Oklahoma to work at Phillips Petroleum Company. DeBacker successfully completed the Oklahoma Bar Examination and was admitted to the Roll of Attorneys on July 10, 1976. When the petitioner left Kansas, he did not provide a forwarding address, nor did he pay Kansas bar dues. As a result of his failure to pay dues, Kansas suspended DeBacker's license on November 18, 1976. Because he did not provide a forwarding address, DeBacker never received notice of the Kansas suspension. ¶4 In August of 1979, DeBacker moved from Oklahoma to Ohio to work in the legal department of Dana Corporation. DeBacker neglected to notify the Oklahoma Bar Association of his move or of his new address, nor did he pay the annual registration fee required to maintain an Oklahoma license. On October 15, 1980, we suspended the petitioner from the practice of law in Oklahoma for non-payment of dues. His name was stricken from the Roll of Attorneys on December 18, 1981. Because of his failure to provide a forwarding address, DeBacker did not receive notification of the Oklahoma suspension. ¶5 DeBacker did not take the Ohio Bar Examination. Instead, he registered under Rules of the Supreme Court of Ohio as an in-house corporate counsel in 1985. ¶6 DeBacker worked his way up through various positions in Dana Corporation's legal department until he was appointed Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Dana Corporation in January of 1994. Sometime shortly before April of 2007, DeBacker was contacted by a reporter who was writing a story for a national law publication about corporate counsels for large United States companies who were not licensed to practice law. DeBacker contends that this was the first time he realized that he might not be properly registered anywhere. The petitioner contacted lawyers in Kansas and Oklahoma for help in determining whether he was registered in either state. ¶7 On April 10, 2007, after learning that he was not registered in either Kansas or Oklahoma, DeBacker ceased to act as Vice President and General Counsel of Data Corporation. He remained employed with the corporation in a nonlegal capacity. The petitioner self-reported his admitted unauthorized practice of law to the Ohio Supreme Court on April 13, 2007. ¶8 DeBacker entered into a consent agreement with the Ohio Supreme Court wherein he admitted to the unauthorized practice of law. The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel agreed not to file a complaint against DeBacker for the unauthorized practice of law as long as he avoided engaging in any activities which constituted the unauthorized practice of law after April 10, 2007. On March 30, 2007, in an apparent attempt to resolve the problem with his Ohio corporate registration, DeBacker filed a petition for reinstatement in this Court. In May and June of 2007, DeBacker completed 18 hours of continuing education courses in Oklahoma which included video replays of courses offered in 2006 and 2005, as well as 15.5 hours in Ohio. ¶9 After a hearing on June 8, 2007, the professional responsibility tribunal found that: 1) DeBacker has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Oklahoma; 2) no harm resulted in his technical oversight of unintentional practice without proper membership; 3) he acted professionally and self-reported his violations when discovered; 4) DeBacker undeniably possesses the highest competence in the law; and 5) he is a lawyer who has been, is and will continue to be an asset to the integrity of the legal profession. The tribunal recommended reinstatement. On July 26, 2007, the Bar Association filed an application to assess costs in the amount of $1,553.49 against the petitioner. The briefing cycle was completed on August 6, 2007, when the parties filed a joint waiver of briefs. ¶10 BECAUSE THE PETITIONER ENGAGED IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWENTY SEVEN YEARS AND HIS CONDUCT ENCOMPASSED MISREPRESENTATION, HE REMAINS SUSPENDED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2008, AND IS REQUIRED TO PAY COSTS AND PAST DUES. ¶11 The petitioner and the Bar Association argue that DeBacker's Oklahoma license should be reinstated. Often, when an attorney is suspended from the Oklahoma Bar Association unrelated to a disciplinary matter, such as for nonpayment of dues, it is because, for whatever reason, the attorney is no longer practicing law within Oklahoma and/or no longer needs to maintain an Oklahoma license to practice law anywhere else. ¶12 Unlike a typical reinstatement case, this cause presents an attorney who has held himself out as licensed in Oklahoma for over 30 years and relied upon that license to practice law in another state, when in fact he had been suspended for all but three of those years. This Court faced a similar situation a few years ago in the Matter of Reinstatement of Sperry, SCBD No. 4800 (2003), when it issued a reinstatement order which was published only in the Oklahoma Bar Journal. ¶13 Sperry involved a patent attorney who became a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association in 1959. A few months later, he moved to another state without providing a forwarding address. Except for a brief residence in Tulsa in 1963-64, Sperry always resided outside Oklahoma. He practiced exclusively in the area of federal patent law for 45 years, but never paid any Oklahoma Bar dues or kept current on Oklahoma law and never bothered to inquire about his membership status. Sperry did not attend any continuing legal education courses, nor did he claim exemption as a nonresident attorney from the necessity of filing an annual report as mandated by Rule 2, Rules Governing Continuing Legal Education, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-B. ¶14 Despite Sperry's non-payment of dues, and despite his ignorance of Oklahoma law over the many years subsequent to his admission, this Court reinstated Sperry to the Roll of Attorneys licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and ordered him to pay his current annual dues of $175.00. This decision was reached despite its apparent conflict with previous decisions such as Matter of Reinstatement of Phillips, ¶15 A person whose name has been stricken from the Roll of Attorneys whether for nonpayment of dues, suspension, or disbarment, must apply for reinstatement through the procedures provided by Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. Supp. 2002, Ch.1, App. 1-A. ¶16 When evaluating a petition for reinstatement, the Court considers: 1) the severity of the original offense and the circumstances surrounding it; 2) whether the applicant possesses the good moral character which would entitle the applicant to admission to the practice of law; 3) whether the applicant engaged in any unauthorized practice of law during suspension; and 4) whether the applicant possesses competency and learning in the law required for admission. a. Conduct Which Would Potentially Gives Rise to Sanctions. ¶17 Had this cause come before us in the guise of a complaint, rather than an application for readmittance, DeBacker's actions could be regarded as sanctionable misrepresentation. ¶18 Attorneys admitted to practice law in Oklahoma are part of the judicial system of Oklahoma and act as officers of its courts. ¶19 The attorney should have been aware of his status or at least on notice that he was not in compliance with the Bar Association Rules. He presumed he was a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association, but never paid dues required for membership after 1980. Everyone is presumed to know the law. ¶20 The general public should be protected from attorney misrepresentations. ¶21 Having been notified that DeBacker had been representing himself as registered in Ohio based on his licensure in Oklahoma, the General Counsel of the Bar or the Professional Responsibility tribunal could have filed disciplinary proceedings against the attorney. However, we are mindful that while DeBacker was without a doubt negligent regarding his Oklahoma license, his oversight was not intentional. Furthermore, when notified of his neglectful behavior, he immediately self-suspended from the practice of law and reported himself to the Ohio Supreme Court. These factors reflect his moral character. b. Conduct Regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Competency in the Law. ¶22 DeBacker admits to the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed not to file a complaint for such conduct as long as he ceased the practice of law altogether. The unauthorized practice of law violates the rules of professional conduct, thereby exposing an attorney to disciplinary sanctions. a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so. . . . ¶23 Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. ¶24 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal, ¶25 In Matter of Reinstatement of Turner, ¶26 Here, while working for the corporation, DeBacker never stepped foot in a courtroom to represent the corporation, nor does it appear the corporation was injured by the fact that he was not licensed. In addition to attending continuing legal education, DeBacker presented numerous letters recommending reinstatement from attorneys who have known DeBacker for many years and who had first hand knowledge of his legal skills, character, and competence. We are convinced that DeBacker has meet his overall burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he should be reinstated. However, we are persuaded by previous cases that some form of discipline should be imposed for his misrepresentations and unauthorized practice of law. Considering that the misrepresentations were neglectful, but not intentional, and that he voluntarily withdrew from practicing law on April 10, 2007, and self-reported to the Ohio Supreme Court, his reinstatement will be deferred until April 10, 2008, which results in a one-year suspension from the practice of law. c. ¶27 Pursuant to Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. Supp. 2002, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, ¶28 DeBacker has been relying on his Oklahoma Bar license, even though he was suspended, since 1980 to maintain his Ohio registration and legal employment in Ohio. In equity and fairness to other attorneys who have paid and continue to pay dues to maintain their license, we condition the petitioner's reinstatement on the payment of dues from 1982 to 2008, which total $4,425.00, coupled with the costs of this proceeding for a total amount of $5,978.49. CONCLUSION ¶29 We are free to accept or to reject the trial panel's recommendations and take any action we deem appropriate REINSTATEMENT GRANTED AND DEFERRED; COSTS AND PAYMENT OF PAST DUES IMPOSED. Winchester, C.J., Edmondson, V.C.J., Hargrave, Kauger, Colbert, Reif, JJ., concur. Opala, J., concurs in part, dissents in part. Watt, J., dissents. Taylor, J., dissenting: Due to his twenty-seven (27) years of clear, obvious and blatant neglect and misrepresentation, this Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence, as required by Oklahoma law, that he "is more qualified than one seeking admission for the first time." His reinstatement should be denied. FOOT