Title: STATE ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROGERS

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

STATE ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROGERS  STATE ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROGERS 2006 OK 54 142 P.3d 428 Case Number: SCBD-5060, OBAD-1657 Decided: 07/05/2006 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel.OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION Complainant, v. JAMES MICHAEL ROGERS, Respondent, ¶0 Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (hereinafter "Complainant") initiated attorney disciplinary proceedings against Respondent/Attorney James Michael Rogers (hereinafter "Respondent") for professional misconduct arising out of numerous alcohol-related felony and misdemeanor convictions spanning over a decade. A Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel found misconduct and recommended suspension for two years and one day. Held: Respondent is guilty of misconduct and the appropriate discipline is suspension for two years and one day. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY; RESPONDENT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. Janis Hubbard, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Gerald J. Lovoi of Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondent. Lavender, J. ¶1 Complainant commenced this proceeding pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (hereinafter "RGDP"), I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Respondent was admitted to the bar on April 17, 1992. At the time of the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, Respondent was 44-years-old. The critical facts in this matter relate to Respondent's criminal history, which, in summary consists of two felony convictions and at least three misdemeanor convictions ¶3 Upon Respondent's arrest in connection with the November, 2003 incident, a motion to accelerate deferred judgment and sentence was filed in the Tulsa County District Court and the Respondent's sentences in the two felony matters were accelerated, resulting in Respondent's incarceration with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections from April 4, 2004 until his release from prison on March 2, 2005. The record reflects Respondent is on probation currently and will remain on probation until March 1, 2008. The conditions of Respondent's probation are substance abuse evaluation and the installation of an ignition interlock device on any vehicle Respondent will drive. Additionally Respondent is required to successfully complete an outpatient substance abuse counseling program as well as attend anger management and "criminal sentiments" groups. ¶4 The evidence reflects that at the time of the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, Respondent was in good standing with his probation and parole officer. In the event Respondent violates the conditions of his probation, a violation report will be submitted to the district court and to the district attorney's office with recommendations ranging from no sanctions to incarceration up to the remainder of his original five-year sentence. ¶5 Respondent has admitted he has a substance abuse problem. ¶6 Complainant initiated its investigation in the instant matter upon its receipt of a letter from Respondent explaining the reasons for Respondent's failure to comply with his 2003 mandatory continuing legal education (hereinafter "MCLE") requirements due to his in-patient substance abuse treatment and incarceration. ¶7 Complainant lists in its Amended Complaint two items for Enhancement of Discipline as follows: 1. Respondent's prior discipline administered by the Professional Responsibility Commission on August 22, 1997 in OBAD #1321 for neglect in representation of Mary Baugh in a divorce case and failure to respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association. 2. During Respondent's May 15, 1997 deposition testimony in OBAD #1321, the Respondent admitted to having difficulties with drinking in the past. ¶8 The Joint Stipulations of Fact document (listed as Complainant's Exhibit No. 5 to Complainant's Trial Exhibits), which was signed by the parties, contains Respondent's "graduation from Narconon Arrowhead in Canadian, OK" as an item of mitigation in this matter. II ANALYSIS ¶ 9 As a starting point, we note the standard of review applicable in this proceeding is de novo, which involves a full exploration of all relevant facts and requires a complete record made before the trial panel. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris, ¶10 Complainant's Amended Complaint lists one count for which Respondent is charged with violating Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP for his alcohol-related criminal convictions. Rule 8.4 provides in pertinent part as follows: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; Rule 1.3 of the RGDP provides as follows: The commission by any lawyer of any act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct, whether in the course of his professional capacity, or otherwise, which act would reasonably be found to bring discredit upon the legal profession, shall be grounds for disciplinary action, whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, or a crime at all. Conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to the imposition of discipline. ¶11 At the hearing before the PRT, Respondent presented only his own testimony as evidence in defense of the Complainant's charges. Respondent testified that his driving record "speaks for itself" as to his "persistent pattern of DUI arrests, finally leading to my conviction." (Tr. at 12). While Rule 8.4(b) provides it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on that person's fitness as a lawyer, "[w]e have said 'fitness to practice law' encompasses more than an absence of detriment to specific clients." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Aston, Although a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor does not facially show a lawyer's unfitness to practice law [State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris ¶12 Respondent's criminal record indeed speaks for itself in terms of the pattern of repeated alcohol-related offenses over a decade and demonstrates clear and convincing evidence of Respondent's indifference to legal obligation as well as acts that bring discredit upon the legal profession. Respondent's convictions for driving under revocation of driver's license at the time of at least two of the DUI arrests is further indicia of Respondent's indifference to legal obligation. ¶13 Respondent's conduct and/or comments made in connection with the criminal arrests as well as comments made during his testimony before the PRT¶ 14 Respondent's conduct in leaving the scene of the November, 2003 motor vehicle accident with property damage (for which he was convicted of a misdemeanor pursuant to 47 O.S. 2001, § 10-10314) is demonstrative of not only disregard for legal obligation, but rises to the level of dishonesty as his actions demonstrate an attempt to evade another arrest for DUI.15 Although the record reflects Respondent's knowledge and awareness at the time of the accident that a collision had occurred (and his understanding at that time of the consequences for his driving while intoxicated), instead of providing any identifying information and/or assistance to the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident, (contrary to statutory duty to give information and render aid pursuant to 47 O.S. 2001, §10-10416) he walked and/or drove17 away from the accident. The victim of the accident reported to the police that Respondent had left the scene and Respondent was eventually apprehended six blocks away. This conduct is the basis for the Complainant's charge that Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c), and we find that under the circumstances of this case, Respondent's conviction for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident with property damage, which he caused due to his driving while intoxicated, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of conduct involving dishonesty for which discipline is warranted pursuant to Rule 8.4(c). See State v. Horton, 271 S.C. 413, 248 S.E.2d 263 , 263 -64 (1978) (concluding "[o]ne who leaves the scene of an accident is fraudulently attempting to relieve himself of any liability" and leaving the scene of an auto accident "is contrary to justice, honesty and good morals."); People v. Bautista, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1 , 265 Cal. Rptr. 661 , 665 (Cal. App. 1990) ( concluding "a person convicted [for leaving the scene of an injury automobile accident] has exhibited an intent and purpose of concealing his identity and also his involvement in an injury -accident."); see also In re Pistotnik, 254 Kan. 294, 864 P.2d 1166 (1993) (determining respondent attorney in Kansas bar disciplinary proceeding violated Rules 8.4(b)(d) & (g) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct when he pled no contest to one count of leaving the scene of an automobile accident). ¶ 15 Respondent's prior discipline for professional misconduct may be considered for enhancement of discipline. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Aston, 2003 OK 101, ¶13, 81 P.3d 676 , 679. Respondent received a private reprimand by the Professional Responsibility Commission in August, 1997 for his neglect in representation of Mary Baugh in a divorce case and failure to respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association. Respondent's deposition was taken in connection with that proceeding in May, 1997, wherein Respondent testified to his difficulties with drinking in the past.18 Although in his earlier deposition Respondent testified in effect that the reason for the neglect of Ms. Baugh's case was due in part to his hospitalization in 1996 for mental health issues,19 (Rogers May 15, 1997 Depo. Tr. at 9-10) his more recent testimony before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal in the instant matter included Respondent's acknowledgment that the earlier hospital admission in 1996 was in fact for alcohol-related "detox" treatment. (Tr. at 26). If we were to assume the truth of Respondent's most recent testimony before the PRT, his admission as to the reason for his 1996 hospitalization clearly demonstrates a connection between his drinking problem and his neglect in the representation of his client, Ms. Baugh, for which he previously received a private reprimand. ¶16 Respondent argues no discipline is warranted here and that our imposition of any discipline would be tantamount to disciplining Respondent for his addiction to alcohol alone. Respondent relies primarily upon State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 1990 OK 9, 791 P.2d 815 (and the related Armstrong case at 1992 OK 79, 848 P.2d 538), in support of his position. We reject Respondent's argument on the basis that Armstrong, a Rule 7 summary proceeding, is distinguishable from the instant case. ¶17 The pertinent facts of Armstrong are as follows: Armstrong had one felony conviction and two prior misdemeanor DUI convictions for arrests spanning a period of three years, Armstrong demonstrated evidence of being sober and a "model of rehabilitation" for over six years, and there were no complaints or allegations of professional misconduct against Armstrong. Armstrong, 848 P.2d at 539. Additionally, the Trial Panel's findings of fact in Armstrong included the following findings: Armstrong's "reputation in the community had been rehabilitated by his demonstrated commitment to conquering his alcoholism; his reputation as an attorney is one of integrity and professionalism." Id. ¶18 Here, Respondent's criminal history is more extensive and spans over a much longer period of time. One critical factual distinction is that unlike Respondent in this case, none of Armstrong's DUI convictions arose from a motor vehicle accident, nor did Armstrong leave the scene of any accident. Respondent's long term pattern of criminal misconduct in this case clearly gives rise to professional discipline. ¶19 While Respondent lists his in-patient treatment in the Narconon facility as a mitigating factor, we cannot consider this evidence weightily in mitigation due to our inability to gauge Respondent's true motivation for entering into the treatment facility, given the timing of his treatment admission while incarceration was imminent. It is open to question whether Respondent sought treatment in recognition of his alcoholism or rather, in an attempt to delay incarceration and/or affect sentencing on the pending felony DUI charge. In order for alcoholism to be weightily considered in mitigation, "the offending attorney must recognize his problem, and seek and cooperate in treatment." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris, 1999 OK 94,¶ 39, 991 P.2d 1015 , 1025 (citation omitted). Respondent has presented no evidence other than his own testimony regarding his commitment to sobriety and participation in substance abuse treatment programs. Additionally, Respondent has offered no evidence regarding his reputation as an attorney. We reject Respondent's attempt to use his alcoholism as a shield against professional discipline where the facts clearly warrant the imposition of discipline. ¶20 We are charged with the responsibility to safeguard public interest and to protect the judicial system. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Adams, 1995 OK 17, ¶ 18, 895 P.2d 701 , 706. It is clear that Respondent's conduct leading to his felony and misdemeanor convictions have brought the bench and bar into disrepute. Additionally, the facts of this case particularly press us to fulfill our primary obligation to protect the public, as the record contains evidence that based upon his criminal history, Respondent is considered a threat to the community.20 In consideration of the pattern of repeat alcohol-related offenses with the most recent offense resulting in a motor vehicle accident with property damage and Respondent's conviction for felony DUI and misdemeanor conviction for leaving the scene of the motor vehicle accident, we must address this misconduct in a manner that will best protect the public. We further note that discipline imposed in a Rule 6 proceeding is designed to deter the respondent from further offending conduct as well as deter other members of the Bar from similar misconduct. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Adams, 1995 OK 17, ¶ 18, 895 P.2d 701 , 706. We therefore determine that suspension for two years and one day is the appropriate discipline. This length of time is particularly appropriate given the number and apparent escalation of severity of the offenses, and is essentially co-extensive with Respondent's supervised probation, which terminates in March of 2008. ¶21 Finally, we note that Respondent's sobriety is the key to his rehabilitation. If Respondent chooses to seek reinstatement, "[a]ny application for reinstatement filed by Respondent will be conditioned upon his continued sobriety." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Briery, 1996 OK 45, 914 P.2d 1046, 1050. Therefore, we refrain from ordering Respondent's participation in Alcoholics Anonymous or Lawyers Helping Lawyers programs. It is Respondent's responsibility to participate in these programs if he desires to regain membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association. See id. III SUMMARY ¶22 In sum, we have reviewed the record before us and accepting the stipulated facts entered into between the parties and accepted by the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, we find that the charges against Respondent have been established by clear and convincing evidence. We adopt the recommendation of the Oklahoma Bar Association and the Professional Responsibility Tribunal that Respondent be suspended from practice of law for a period of two years and one day from the date this opinion becomes final. Respondent is further ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $563.47, within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final. ¶23 RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY; RESPONDENT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. ¶24 WATT, C.J., WINCHESTER, V.C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, OPALA, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR and COLBERT, JJ., concur. ¶25 KAUGER, J., concurring in result. Although I agree with the discipline imposed, this proceeding should have been brought under Rule 10. FOOT