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

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. STORMONT  STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. STORMONT 2001 OK 80 37 P.3d 795 72 OBJ 2745 Case Number: SCBD-4512 Decided: 09/25/2001 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant v. ROBERT L. STORMONT, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE ¶0 Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association, charged Respondent, Robert L. Stormont, with three counts of professional misconduct. A hearing was conducted before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. Based on the evidence presented, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and mitigating factors, the Trial Panel recommended that Stormont be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months and that the costs of the proceedings should be assessed against him. Upon our de novo review, we agree with and adopt the recommendation of the trial panel. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS AND ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING Mike Speegle, Assistant General Counsel, OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Charles F. Alden, III, HUDSON & ALDEN, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent. OPINION WATT, V.C.J.: ¶1 On December 9, 1999, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint alleging professional misconduct by Respondent, Robert L. Stormont. Stormont filed his answer on January 11, 2000. ¶2 On August 11, 2000, the Bar deposed Stormont and on January 9, 2001, a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal conducted a hearing. The parties entered into stipulations of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended discipline, which were attached in an exhibit to the Trial Panel's report, filed February 22, 2001. On March 16, 2001, the Bar filed an application to assess costs in the amount of $2,358.07. COUNT I ¶3 In April 1996, Shirley Bryant was injured in an automobile accident. In April 1997, she hired Stormont to represent her and settled the case on September 8, 1997 for $15,000. Stormont received a contingent fee of $5,000.00 and held out $5,513.00 of the settlement funds to pay medical expenses incurred by Ms. Bryant. He set aside $119.14 for office expenses and gave Ms. Bryant the remainder of the settlement proceeds, $4,267.86. Stormont agreed to pay the medical bills from the funds he held out at the time the settlement was received. ¶4 Soon after the settlement, Ms. Bryant began to receive bills from her medical providers and learned that they had not been paid. Ms. Bryant then made several attempts to contact Stormont but he did not return her phone calls. ¶5 On February 6, 1998, Ms. Bryant went to Stormont's office. Stormont told her at that time that checks for the medical bills had been made out and mailed and that he would check on it and get back with her. She did not hear from Stormont so she went back to his office and inquired again on February 17, 1998. Stormont again told Ms. Bryant that he would check on the matter and get back in touch with her but he did not do so. ¶6 Ms. Bryant returned to Stormont's office in March and April, 1998 and was told on both occasions that he would follow up on the matter. Again, Stormont did not do so. Finally, on June 25, 1998, Ms. Bryant filed a written complaint with the Oklahoma Bar Association complaining of Stormont's failure to pay her medical bills or assist her in seeing that they were paid for a period of ten months. ¶7 The Bar notified Stormont of Ms. Bryant's complaint against him and Stormont responded. He included copies of checks he had made out to Ms. Bryant's medical providers in his response and alleged that he had "requested [that they be] mailed to providers." Stormont could not explain why the checks were never received by the providers. He then issued new checks and paid Ms. Bryant's medical providers. ¶8 The Bar examined Stormont's trust account statements for the period between the date the first checks to Ms. Bryant's medical providers were issued, in September 1997, and the date Stormont actually paid them, in June and July 1998. The Bar's examination of these records revealed that during the period between September 1997 and June 1998 Stormont's trust account had insufficient balances to cover the amounts owed to Ms. Bryant's medical providers. ¶9 The parties stipulated that Stormont's conduct described above violated Rules 1.3,1 1.4,2 1.15,3 and 8.4(a),4 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; and Rule 1.4(b),5 Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. COUNT II ¶10 The Bar also examined additional Stormont trust account records. Those account records revealed that Stormont habitually held clients' funds for weeks and sometimes months before paying them, including funds owed to medical providers. Stormont also kept his own funds and attorney fees in his trust account and periodically wrote checks to himself and to pay office and personal expenses without recording the specific source of the funds that covered those checks. ¶11 Stormont and the Bar stipulated that Stormont's misconduct, set out in this count, violated Rule 1.4(c), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties further stipulated, however that Stormont's misconduct constituted simple conversion, not misappropriation, according to this Court's interpretation of Rule 1.4(c) set out in State, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91 ¶24-25, 863 P.2d 1136 , 1144. We agree. FACTORS IN MITIGATION ¶12 Stormont has been a practicing lawyer since 1966 and before this matter arose had never been charged with ethical misconduct by the Bar nor been disciplined by this Court. Further, none of Stormont's clients has ever lost any money as a result of Stormont's misconduct and all non-clients who were entitled to payment from Stormont's trust account have been fully paid. RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE ¶13 Based on the foregoing stipulated facts the parties agreed that appropriate discipline would be the suspension of Stormont's privilege to practice law for a period of eighteen months. At the conclusion of the hearing before the trial panel, at which Stormont and an investigator for the Bar testified, the trial panel recommended to this Court that Stormont be suspended from practicing law for eighteen months and pay the costs of the proceeding. DISCUSSION ¶14 There is no dispute here as to either the facts or the law. Stormont and the Bar stipulated both to the facts and to which of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings Stormont had violated. The trial panel accepted those stipulated findings and recommended the same discipline as that stipulated to by the parties, an eighteen month suspension from the law practice and the payment of costs. As is our duty, we have considered this matter de novo, that is we have examined the record independently and non-deferentially. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Evans, 1994 OK 45 ¶12, 880 P.2d 333 , 227. Our independent examination of the record leads to conclude that the record supports the facts stipulated to by the parties, the application of the law to those facts made by the trial panel, and the recommended discipline. ¶15 Stormont has stipulated that he violated Rule 1.3, Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." He also admits that he violated Rule 1.4(a), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, by failing to keep Ms. Bryant "reasonably informed about the status of a matter" and in not fulfilling his obligation to Ms. Bryant to "promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." Additionally, Stormont concedes that he violated Rule 1.15(a), Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, in failing to hold the money owed to Ms. Bryant's medical providers "separate from the lawyer's own property." ¶16 Most seriously, Stormont admits that he violated Rule 1.4, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Rule 1.4(b) provides, "Where money or other property has been entrusted to any attorney for a specific purpose, he must apply it to that purpose. Rule 1.4(c) provides, "Theft by conversion or otherwise of the funds of a client, if proved, result in disbarment." Although Stormont long delayed payment of the money he held to Ms. Bryant's medical providers, we conclude that disbarment is not called for here. ¶17 In State, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91 ¶24-25, 863 P.2d 1136 , 1144, we distinguished "simple conversion," from "misappropriation, i.e. 'theft by conversion or otherwise'" as that term is used in Rule 1.4. We held there that where the lawyer "did not intend to misappropriate his client's money," disbarment is not called for. Here there was no misappropriation of funds by Stormont; there was only a delay, albeit a lengthy one, in paying them. Further, neither Ms. Bryant, nor her medical providers ultimately suffered any loss as a result of Stormont's misconduct. Consequently, we agree with the parties and the trial panel that a suspension of eighteen months is appropriate. We find that Stormont's misconduct set out in the record is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The trial panel's recommendation that Stormont be suspended for eighteen months is accordingly adopted. Within thirty days of the date of this opinion Stormont shall pay the costs incurred in this proceeding in the amount of $2,358.07. Payment of those costs as ordered shall be a pre-condition to Stormont's readmission to the law practice at the conclusion of his suspension. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS AND ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING ¶18 HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., LAVENDER, OPALA, KAUGER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ. - concur. ¶19 HODGES, J. - disqualified. FOOT