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

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. REYNOLDS  STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. REYNOLDS 2012 OK 95 Case Number: SCBD-5814 Decided: 11/20/2012 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. JONNA LYNN REYNOLDS, Respondent. BAR PROCEEDING ¶0 The Oklahoma Bar Association, the complainant, brought a five-count complaint against Jonna Lynn Reynolds, the respondent. The respondent is currently suspended for failure to complete the requirements of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. The respondent failed to respond to the grievances, but did attend her disciplinary hearing. After the disciplinary hearing, The Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended that the respondent be suspended for two years and a day. THE RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY, AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. Gina Hendryx, General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for complainant. Jonna Lynn Reynolds, pro se. WINCHESTER, J. ¶1 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, brought a Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, Jonna Lynn Reynolds, for neglect of cases, failure to keep clients informed of the status of their cases, collecting and retaining fees for which no services were provided, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. ¶2 On November 2, 2011, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint against the respondent consisting of five counts. In Count I, the Complaint alleged that Ruth Watkins hired the respondent to represent her interests in a collection matter. Watkins sought assistance in collecting money due her pursuant to her divorce decree. She paid $3,000 for the representation. Subsequently, Watkins made repeated attempts to contact the respondent over several months, but her calls were not returned. The respondent did no legal work on this matter and did not return the file materials. Watkins submitted a grievance on March 7, 2011. The Bar Association mailed copies of the grievance on two occasions, but Reynolds did not respond. ¶3 In Count II, the Complaint alleged that Kathy Dean Ballard hired the respondent to represent her son in a criminal matter, and Ballard paid her $250. However, she did not communicate with Ballard again, and did not return any of the attorney fee. Ballard filed a grievance on March 30, 2011, and the Bar Association mailed copies of the grievance on two occasions, but as in the Watkins matter, Reynolds did not respond. ¶4 In Count III, Rodger D. Cameron paid respondent $100 to submit a complaint on his behalf, but the respondent ceased communications with Cameron, and did not respond to requests for information. After two notices from the Bar Association concerning the complaint, the Bar Association received no response from Reynolds. ¶5 In Count IV, Cecelia Kay McDaniels hired the respondent on or about August 7, 2009, to represent her in a dissolution of marriage, and paid her $1,000 for the representation and $187.30 for court filing fees. Although the respondent filed the matter on August 14, 2009, she did no further work on the matter, forcing McDaniels to hire substitute counsel to complete the matter. She stopped all communication with McDaniels, and did not respond to requests for the return of any unearned portion of the attorney fee. McDaniels filed a grievance on July 22, 2011. As in the other counts against Reynolds, she did not respond to the notices that the Bar Association sent. ¶6 In Count V, Rodger Dewayne Sutterfield hired the respondent to represent him in a criminal matter, and paid a legal fee of $1,200. She appeared in court on his behalf on four hearing dates through October 2010. But she failed to appear on three other dates in 2010 and 2011. Sutterfield hired substitute counsel to conclude the matter. As with the previous four Counts, Reynolds stopped communicating with her client, and he submitted a grievance on August 5, 2011. When the Bar Association sent copies of the grievance, Reynolds did not respond. ¶7 When the Professional Responsibility Tribunal met for the hearing, the respondent appeared pro se, cross-examined the witnesses who had been called and examined by the Bar Association, and Reynolds testified on her own behalf. The respondent admitted, and the trial panel found that the she "basically abandoned all of her pending cases and clients in October 2010." She took fees without completing her cases, and failed to communicate with the Bar regarding complaints filed by her clients. The respondent testified to having problems with depression and the investigators for the Bar Association testified to behavior of the respondent that would be consistent with depression, but the trial panel found there were no mitigating factors presented. Although Reynolds alleged depression, she was neither taking medication nor attending counseling. ¶8 The Trial Panel found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. In each of five Counts against the respondent, the trial panel found violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3,1 1.4,2 1.5,3 3.24 and 8.4(d)5 , as well as violations of the Rules Governing Professional Conduct 1.36 and 5.27 in each of the five Counts. ¶9 Regarding discipline enhancement, the panel found that Reynolds failed to acknowledge the seriousness of her professional misconduct or take any responsibility for her actions. She failed to effectively respond to the Bar's investigation and did not participate in any resolution of the grievances set forth in the Bar Association's Complaint. The respondent has been suspended since June 20, 2011, for failure to complete Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements. The Panel recommended to this Court the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for two years and one day and that she pay the costs associated with this proceeding. ¶10 Repeatedly, this Court has emphasized that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorneys involved, but to protect the public. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Mothershed, 2003 OK 34, ¶ 42, 66 P.3d 420 , 428. The Bar Association's Brief in Chief, concurring with the Trial Panel's Report, recommends suspending Reynolds for a period of two years and one day, and assessing the costs of the proceedings to the respondent. ¶11 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, 242 P.3d 517, Whitebook was suspended for two years and one day, and ordered to pay costs. This Court found that Whitebook failed to provide competent representation, failed to act with diligence in representing his clients, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed, failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and failed to charge a client a reasonable fee. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, ¶ 17, 242 P.3d at 521.He also did not appear for the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, ¶ 11, 242 P.3d at 520. These failures violated rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 8.1(b) of the ORPC, and Rule 5.2 of the RGDP. Whitebook, 2010 OK 72, ¶ 22, 242 P.3d at 522. ¶12 Like Whitebook, in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, 142 P.3d 410 , Beasley was also suspended for two years and one day, and ordered to pay costs. The Court found that Beasley violated the ORPC, rule 1.1 by his lack of preparation, rule 1.3 by his lack of diligence and promptness, rule 1.4 by his failure to communicate with his clients, rule 1.16(d) by his failure to refund unearned fees, rule 8.1(b) by his failure to provide information to the Bar Association, and rule 8.4(c) by his misrepresenting a court date. He also violated the RGDP, rule 1.3 by bringing discredit upon the legal profession, and rule 5.2 by his failure to respond to the grievances. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, ¶ 24, 142 P.3d at 416-417. Beasley appeared before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, and stipulated that the allegations were admitted. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, ¶ 6, 142 P.3d at 412. ¶13 On our de novo review, we find by clear and convincing evidence that Reynolds violated the ORPC and the RGDP. This professional misconduct warrants discipline and the suspension of her license to practice law for a period of two years and one day, beginning from the date she was suspended for the MCLE violation, June 20, 2011. The Bar Association filed an application to assess the costs of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $1,332.66. Reynolds has not filed an objection to this application. She is ordered to pay costs in the amount of $1,332.66 within ninety days after this opinion becomes final, pursuant to RGDP, Rule 6.16.8 THE RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY, AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. CONCUR: TAYLOR, C.J., WATT, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON and COMBS, JJ. CONCURING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART: REIF, J. DISSENT: COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, GURICH, JJ. REIF, J., CONCURRING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART, I CONCUR TO SUSPEND RESPONDENT FOR TWO YEARS, BUT DISSENT TO IMPOSING SUSPENSION BEYOND TWO YEARS. KAUGER, J., DISSENTING, WITH WHOM GURICH, J. JOINS. FOOT