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

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHANBOUR  STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHANBOUR 2003 OK 116 84 P.3d 107 Case Number: SCBD-4781 Decided: 12/23/2003 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. STEPHEN FARRIS SHANBOUR, Respondent. RULE 7 BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ¶0 By letter, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) informed this Court that respondent/attorney, after guilty pleas, was convicted and sentenced on ten (10) criminal counts, to wit: one of stalking in violation of RESPONDENT DISBARRED AND HIS NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, THE DISBARMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE RESPONDENT WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT'S JANUARY 27, 2003 ORDER. Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. John W. Coyle, III of the Coyle Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for respondent. LAVENDER, J.: ¶1 In December 2002, pursuant to Rule 7 (Summary Disciplinary Proceedings Before Supreme Court) of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App.1-A, as amended ¶2 In November 2002 respondent was sentenced on the charges. On the stalking count he received a one year sentence in the custody and control of the Oklahoma County Sheriff. On four counts he received two years imprisonment in the custody and control of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC), the imprisonment to be served concurrently on each and with the stalking count. On the remaining five counts he received ten (10) year suspended sentences under DOC's custody and control, these counts to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to his imprisonment. ¶3 In January 2003, this Court issued an Order suspending respondent from the practice of law; gave him an opportunity to show cause, in writing, why a final order of discipline should not be made, whether he desired a hearing and to submit a brief and documents in the interest of explaining his conduct or mitigating the severity of discipline; and allowed the OBA to respond to his submissions. Respondent did not request a hearing. The OBA argues for disbarment; respondent for a suspension of two years and one day, retroactive to his arrest date in 2000 regarding the criminal charges. We hold the appropriate discipline is disbarment. ¶4 In State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shofner, In disciplinary proceedings this Court acts as a licensing court in the exercise of our exclusive original jurisdiction, not as a reviewing tribunal. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downing, Our responsibility is not to punish the offending lawyer, but to assess his/her continued fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Meek, Mitigating circumstances are also often considered when assessing the appropriate measure of discipline. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Thomas, ¶5 In our view, respondent stands convicted of crimes that demonstrate his unfitness to practice law and that warrant his disbarment. The charging information in the criminal case and materials presented to us by both respondent and complainant to support their respective positions on discipline set forth the nature of the crimes involved here. In essence, at some time in the fall of 1998 respondent began a relentless campaign to harass a former secretary (R. H.). The harassment expanded to include R. H.'s boyfriend (T. H.) and the boyfriend's daughter (A. H.), who was approximately eleven (11) years old. ¶6 The intended victim of the four attempted distribution counts to which respondent plead guilty was A. H., the minor daughter of T. H. The materials respondent was using to harass or attempt to harass his victims include his "writings", which he mainly placed on cards and/or postcards mailed to his victims. These materials include some of the most vile language imaginable. It is plain from our review of the pre-sentence investigation report that, at least, some of the materials were, at a minimum, impliedly threatening and caused fear in one or more of the victims. Further, in one case, in essence, the material accused T. H. of child molestation. ¶7 At a minimum, respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App. 3-A, which provides, "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." It also violated Rule 1.3 of the RGDP which provides: 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. ¶8 In mitigation, respondent has, in effect, presented documentation that he was suffering from depression and/or obsessive/compulsive disorder when he committed these crimes. He has also presented letters from attorneys and others on his behalf that were earlier submitted to the criminal sentencing judge. Materials before us further indicate he underwent mental health treatment prior to his sentencing in the criminal case, both psychotherapy and medication for his mental health disorder(s), and, apparently, he continues to receive treatment while he is serving his prison term. Documentary material from a psychiatrist who has treated respondent, dated January 2003, in effect, indicates that with continued psychotherapy and proper medication, his mental health problems have been "cured". ¶9 Notwithstanding the materials presented by respondent in mitigation (which we have thoroughly reviewed), we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate discipline and that respondent's disbarment will best serve the welfare of the public and the integrity of the bar. Although we have recently pointed out that at times we have meted out discipline of less than disbarment where the issue of the appropriate discipline arose from a felony conviction [State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wyatt, ¶10 IT IS ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT, STEPHEN FARRIS SHANBOUR IS DISBARRED AND HIS NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, THE DISBARMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE RESPONDENT WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT'S JANUARY 27, 2003 ORDER. ¶11 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. FOOT