Title: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHT
Citation: 2015 OK 59
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 29, 2015

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHT Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KNIGHT 2015 OK 59 Case Number: SCBD-6262 Decided: 09/29/2015 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. DAVID WILLIAM KNIGHT, Respondent. PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ¶0 Respondent, a lawyer licensed in Oklahoma, received a one-year suspension of his professional license by a previous order of this Court, and his license is currently suspended. He practiced law in Oklahoma after the order of suspension became effective and he did not inform his clients of his suspension. The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal Complaint in this Court against Respondent alleging his unauthorized practice of law and his failure to cooperate with the Bar Association's investigation. A hearing was held before a trial panel of the Oklahoma Professional Responsibility Tribunal and the trial panel recommended a professional discipline by a suspension of Respondent's license for a period not less than two years and one day. We hold that the appropriate professional discipline is a suspension of Respondent's license for a period of two years and one day (2 years and 1 day) and assess costs against him in the amount of one-thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-six cents ($1,854.96). RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE THIS OPINION IS FINAL; AND RESPONDENT SHALL PAY COSTS WITHIN NINETY DAYS Katherine Ogden, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. David W. Knight, Wichita Falls, Texas, pro se. EDMONDSON, J. ¶1 This professional disciplinary proceeding arose after the respondent lawyer, David W. Knight, (1) practiced law in Oklahoma while his license was suspended by this Court, (2) failed to follow the rules for a lawyer with a suspended license, and (3) failed to timely and adequately respond to the Oklahoma Bar Association's requests for information in this proceeding. Knight's license to practice law is currently suspended. We suspend Knight's license to practice law for a period of two years and one day effective on the date this opinion is final and order him to pay costs in the amount of one-thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-six cents ($1,854.96), within ninety days of the date this opinion is final. ¶2 Knight was admitted to the practice of law in Oklahoma on October 14, 1982. Knight has also been licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. On July 16, 2014, this Court suspended Knight's license to practice law in Oklahoma for a period of one year. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 2014 OK 71, 330 P.3d 1216. This previous proceeding arose in Oklahoma as a reciprocal discipline case after the Grievance committee of the State Bar of Texas (District 14) ordered a one-year suspension of Knight's Texas license for his violation of Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), and 1.15(d) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (TDRPC).1 ¶3 Knight made no appearance in his previous Oklahoma disciplinary proceeding. His one-year suspension was imposed by the Court's opinion dated July 16, 2014, and that opinion did not explicitly find that an immediate implementation of discipline was necessary to protect the public. The Court's public docket on the internet shows that Knight's opinion imposing a one-year suspension was mailed to the parties on July 16, 2014. This internet docket was available for public viewing when the Court's opinion was filed, and Knight could have accessed this docket and verified the information when he received his copy in the mail. By application of Disciplinary Rule 6.15,2 Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.193,3 and the opinions of this Court explaining the effective date for imposition of lawyer discipline,4 Knight could have timely sought a rehearing between July 17, 2014 and August 5, 2014, and without a timely filed petition for rehearing his one-year suspension was effective on August 6, 2014. I. Respondent's Representation of Brackett After Suspension Date ¶4 Brackett, a resident of Texas, paid Knight $1,500.00 to represent him in an Oklahoma criminal misdemeanor proceeding, State v. Brackett, CM-2014-88, Cotton County, Oklahoma. On August 13, 2014, Knight and Brackett traveled to the Cotton County Courthouse where Knight negotiated a plea for Brackett with Assistant District Attorney Mark Clark. On that date Knight signed and acknowledged before Judge Flanagan a waiver of a jury trial on behalf of Brackett. Also at that time an order was presented to Judge Flanagan for a change of Brackett's plea. Knight executed these documents as "Attorney for Defendant." ¶5 After these negotiations Knight informed Brackett that he would need to appear at the next hearing and enter his negotiated plea without Knight being present. On September 26, 2014 , Brackett appeared before Judge Flanagan without Knight or any other lawyer. Brackett was not told by Knight that he had been suspended from the practice of law. Knight did not file a motion to withdraw in Brackett's case. II. Respondent's Representation of Branham after Suspension Date ¶6 A Court Minute shows on August 18, 2014, in Case Nos. CF-2011-48 and CM-2011-244, Cotton County, Oklahoma, Knight appeared for and with the Defendant, Blake Keith Don Branham, at a hearing where the State wanted Branham incarcerated without bond, and Branham requested a hearing on his bond. The trial judge and assistant district attorney present at Branham's criminal proceeding testified before the trial panel and explained Knight's representation of Branham, including Knight's oral argument to the trial court on behalf of Branham and the bond he sought. ¶7 The trial judge testified he subsequently read Knight's suspension on OSCN. In the presence of the assistant district attorney, the judge telephoned Knight concerning his continued representation in criminal cases before the judge. The judge requested Knight to file motions to "withdraw from your cases and do whatever the Bar is telling you to do so that we can handle our cases here properly." On August 27, 2014, Knight filed a motion to withdraw in Branham's case, and requested permission to withdraw "for reason that Defendant and this attorney are unable to agree on how this case is to proceed." The trial judge and the assistant district attorney informed the Bar of the events. III. Failure to Respond to Grievance and Failure to Obey a Subpoena ¶8 The Bar requested Knight's response to a formal professional Grievance. During his testimony before the trial panel, Knight stated he was aware he failed to timely respond in an appropriate manner during his private reprimand proceeding before the Oklahoma Professional Responsibility Commission in 2011 and in the Oklahoma Supreme Court proceeding in 2014. He stated his awareness of his duty to respond to a Grievance when requested by the Bar, but he did not know why he had failed to respond to the Grievance in the present proceeding. ¶9 When Knight failed to respond as requested by the Bar he was subpoenaed for a deposition. He contacted the Bar and the date for the deposition was continued to accommodate his schedule. During this time the Bar informed Knight he was required to respond to the Grievance, and the deposition would occur on the re-scheduled date in the absence of his required "full and adequate response." In addition to information concerning his representation in the criminal proceedings, the Bar requested information on the steps he had taken to implement the Supreme Court's 2014 order of suspension. ¶10 The day before the re-scheduled deposition and after the Bar offices were closed for the day, the Bar received a one-page fax from Knight stating it was his response to the Grievance. Knight's one-page fax states he thought he had thirty days from the date he received the Supreme Court's order for him to conclude his representation in Oklahoma courts. The Bar telephoned and faxed his office immediately after receiving the fax as well as the next day with a statement that his letter was not a complete response to the Grievance and his attendance at a deposition was still necessary because his letter gave no additional information concerning his clients, notifying them of his suspension, under what circumstances he had appeared in the District Court, and what representations he had made to others and the District Court concerning his license or representing clients. The Bar offered to continue the deposition until later in the day to provide Knight time needed to travel to the Bar offices in Oklahoma City. Knight did not answer his telephone or respond to the Bar's faxes that evening or the day of the re-scheduled deposition. IV. Knight's Participation at the Trial Panel Hearing ¶11 A hearing was held before a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal. Knight appeared pro se at the hearing and testified. Knight was asked why on August 13, 2014, he failed to inform the trial judge and the assistant district attorney that he had been suspended. He said, "I thought I had 30 days from the date that I received the - - the notice from the Oklahoma Supreme Court to either petition for rehearing or to wrap up my business. And I didn't realize it was 20 days from the date of the order." He said that on August 13, 2014, the day he appeared in District Court, he thought he had 15 or 20 days left "to practice or to file a petition for rehearing." ¶12 He testified he thought his appearance in District Court with Branham on August 18, 2014, was proper because it was within thirty days after his receipt of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's opinion. He was asked the date he received the Supreme Court's opinion and how he calculated the thirty-day period. He responded he could not remember the exact date he received by mail the Supreme Court's opinion or whether he still possessed the envelope used for mailing the opinion to him, and he calculated the date the order became final for purpose of suspension as "the very, very end of August or - - or the first week of September." ¶13 He testified he was not aware of Rule 9.1 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and its requirement for notification of clients when a lawyer has his or her license suspended by this Court. He testified he could not remember when he told Brackett to hire another lawyer or how much he refunded to him: "I'm not sure exactly. . . I know I refunded some of his money, if not all of it." ¶14 Knight testified his law office is in Wichita Falls, Texas, and he was licensed to practice law in both Oklahoma and Texas. He stated during July and August 2014, he employed an office assistant to process his mail, and he had "trouble" receiving his certified mail during this period. He stated that at the time of his trial panel hearing this assistant was no longer employed by him. He also stated this same assistant was responsible for the timing for sending his letter responding to the Bar's Grievance by a fax transmission after 5:00 p.m. on the day before his rescheduled deposition. After the Bar rested its case, Knight repeated his earlier testimony "there was never any intent to violate the [Supreme] Court's order and to practice law without permission." V. Knight's Rule 6.4 Admission and Supreme Court's Review ¶15 On April 6, 2015, the Bar filed a Rule 6 Complaint in this Court alleging Knight's violations of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC). The Bar alleges Knight violated Rules 1.16(a)(1),5 3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c),6 5.5, 8.1(b),7 and 8.4 of the ORPC and Rules 1.3,8 5.2,9 and 9.110 of the RGDP. The Complaint alleges Knight: (1) practiced law in the District Court of Cotton County Oklahoma while his license to practice was under an order of suspension by this Court, and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Rule 5.5;11 (2) failed to notify his clients his Bar license was suspended in Oklahoma and he must cease representing them and violating Rule 9.1 RGDP; (3) failed to notify the District Court of Cotton County he must withdraw from proceedings in that court, also violating 9.1 RGDP; (4) failed to file an Answer to the Bar's Complaint in the Supreme Court, violating Rule 5.2, RGDP; (5) failed to file his Rule 9.1 affidavit with the Professional Responsibility Commission and the Supreme Court, violating that rule; (6) misrepresented to the District Court his status as a licensed lawyer; and (7) failed to communicate properly with the Bar. ¶16 At his trial panel hearing, the Bar argued Rule 1.16(a)(1) states a lawyer may not engage in representation that violates the ORPC, and practicing law without a license in good standing violates Rule 5.5 of the ORPC and thus also Rule 1.16(a)(1). The Bar argued Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the ORPC was violated by false statements of fact to a tribunal, and a failure to correct those false statements, by appearing in open court and arguing for his clients when he did not have a Bar license in good standing. The Bar argued Rule 3.3 was violated by Knight's knowingly disobeying an order or obligation. The Bar stated Knight violated Rule 8.1(b) ORPC and 5.2 RGDP by his failure to respond to the Bar's requests for information. The Bar stated Knight violated 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, by his failure to formally withdraw from the criminal proceedings where he was representing criminal defendants. The Bar also argued 1.3 RGDP was violated by Knight's acts contrary to the prescribed standard of conduct. ¶17 Knight appeared at the trial panel hearing where he testified, cross-examined witnesses, and argued for a one-year suspension of his Bar license. The trial panel was acting as this Court's hearing examiner in this original jurisdiction proceeding.12 Knight's appearance before the trial panel is an appearance before this Court in this original jurisdiction proceeding.13 Knight did not file a post-hearing brief in this Court. We have explained a respondent's mere failure to file a brief in this Court does not prevent this Court from reviewing the entire record and the merits of disciplinary charges.14 However, our usual review of the entire disciplinary proceeding is altered by a respondent's admission pursuant to Rule 6.4. ¶18 The Bar supplied evidence Knight was properly served with notice of the Complaint in this proceeding. Knight did not file an Answer to that Complaint, or seek additional time to file an Answer. The Bar filed a motion to deem the Complaint's allegations admitted, and at the conclusion of his hearing the trial panel granted the motion. ¶19 Disciplinary Rule 6.4 provides that if the respondent fails to answer the complaint, the charges shall be deemed admitted except that evidence shall be submitted for the purpose of determining the discipline to be imposed.15 We have followed this rule in several proceedings.16 ¶20 A proceeding adjudicating a lawyer's professional discipline has characteristics of an adversarial legal proceeding where the parties are required to put at issue both facts and legal arguments and this Court adjudicates the issues as framed by the parties.17 The private nature of this dispute incorporates a party's authority to waive his or her personal rights. However, a disciplinary proceeding is more than a merely private dispute, and a party's stipulation or admission may raise public interests relating to the merits and require the Court to consider those interests in addition to determining the discipline to be imposed. ¶21 Purposes of a lawyer disciplinary proceeding include, but are not limited to, protecting the public and the judiciary, preserving the integrity of the bar, and deterring similar misconduct by the attorney being disciplined and other members of the bar.18 In the context of a lawyer seeking to waive his or her personal rights by making admissions or stipulations as to unprofessional conduct and violations of the ORPC and RGDP, our opinions have recognized various public interests that require the Court to limit a lawyer's admission or stipulation in a particular proceeding. For example, a lawyer's attempt to waive certain personal procedural and substantive rights and admit to unprofessional conduct in the context of a resignation pending discipline is limited by public interest requirements for making a resignation effective.19 Another example has occurred in the context of a trial panel proceeding when the Court has rejected admissions or stipulations when they were factually incorrect20 or incorrect as a matter of law21 and raised a public interest issue. In summary, public interests may limit the lawyer's authority in making particular admissions or stipulations as to facts or law sought by the Bar.22 Thus, we have often explained that admissions and stipulations must be supported by the record, and we will review the record to determine if a lawyer has violated the rules governing professional conduct.23 ¶22 When a lawyer has failed to file an answer to a formal complaint and failed to participate in a disciplinary hearing, the Court has found allegations of misconduct in the complaint deemed admitted and imposed discipline by a published order. In such cases, the Court reviews the entire disciplinary record, including the Complaint and a Bar's motion to deem the allegations admitted, and in the absence of public interests appearing on the record that would limit the scope of a Rule 6.4 admission, we may state our summary of the allegations deemed admitted and impose the appropriate discipline by an order.24 ¶23 We have stated "In Rule 8.4 cases we have examined the evidence for an improper motive for the misrepresentation. 'A misrepresentation must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that the declarant had an underlying motive (i.e., bad or evil intent) for making the statement.' We have looked at whether a lawyer was attempting to gain some advantage by a misrepresentation."25 We have applied this analysis examining intent and motive in both Rule 8.4 (c)26 Rule 8.4(d)27 matters. Intent is also involved in a Rule 8.4(b) matter, misconduct by committing a criminal act.28 We have rejected an admission to a Rule 8.4 violation when the record showed that the underlying required motive was not present.29 ¶24 The Bar refers to violations of both Rule 8.430 and Rule 8.4 (d). The Bar stated Knight violated 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, by his failure upon suspension to formally withdraw from the criminal proceedings where he was representing criminal defendants and the fact of his misrepresenting his Bar status to the court.31 The assistant district attorney and the trial judge agreed Knight's representation of his clients had been professional except for the failure to immediately file a motion to withdraw upon his suspension. They could not point to any advantage gained by Knight when he failed to withdraw upon suspension. They could not point to any detriment suffered by Knight's clients when he failed to withdraw upon suspension. The Bar did not present evidence of any monetary advantage Knight may have tried to gain by a delay in withdrawing from the cases. The Bar elicited testimony on the potential adverse circumstance created by a lawyer not withdrawing after a suspension of the lawyer's license; that is, a defendant using the lawyer's suspension as a basis for an appeal of a his or her criminal judgment and conviction. ¶25 Knight testified he was ignorant of the proper ethical standards. Ignorance may be intentional or willful. For example, it has been a truism in different areas of the law that ignorance of facts provides no defense where ignorance is intentional and deliberate in circumstances that would, or should, require an ascertainment of the facts.32 While Knight's testimony shows that his conduct appears to be an intentional ignorance of his ethical obligations, the evidence fails to show a bad or evil motive for his failure to timely withdraw from the proceedings. We decline to accept part of the Rule 6.4 admission as it relates to a violation of ORPC 8.4 and Knight's failure to withdraw in a timely manner when representing criminal defendants.33 ¶26 The Bar argued that Rule 3.3 of the ORPC was violated by false statements of fact to a tribunal and Knight's failure to correct those false statements by (1) appearing in open court and arguing for his clients when he did not have a Bar license in good standing and (2) for failing to state the real reason for his motion to withdraw.34 Knight admitted in the trial panel proceeding he had not stated the fact of his suspension in the motion to withdraw because "I didn't want my client to know the reason why I had done this." ¶27 A lawyer has a duty to know both the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.35 Knight stated that in 2014 he was not sure of the effective date of his suspension order. Knight did not contact the Bar in an attempt to discover the effective date of the Court's order. ¶28 We have explained for the purpose of Rule 3.3, a lawyer's professed subjective belief when representing a fact to a tribunal will be rejected when we determine the lawyer could not have reasonably believed what he or she claimed.36 Knight represented to the trial court that he was a licensed lawyer. He believed this was correct because he had the subjective belief that he was licensed until "the very, very end of August or - - or the first week of September." We do not believe that Knight, or any licensed lawyer of this Court, could reasonably believe Knight's method for calculating an effective date for a suspension order and seek to apply it indeterminately across a week to two-week period of time. Knight's defense of subjective ignorance does not excuse him from a Rule 3.3 prohibition of knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. We find no issue to prevent Knight's admission to Rule 3.3 violations. ¶29 ORPC 3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. Knight's subjective belief concerning his Bar status is unreasonable after he received notification of his suspension. ¶30 We have reviewed the entire record before us. There is no public interest present in the proceeding that would act to limit the scope of Knight's Rule 6.4 admission beyond that discussed herein concerning Rule 8.4. We agree with the trial panel and deem the allegations of the Complaint admitted with the single exception of an admission that Rule 8.4 was violated by Knight's untimely motion to withdraw and his misrepresentation of his Bar status. VI. Discipline and Costs ¶31 Knight received a one-year suspension effective August 6, 2014. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Knight, 2014 OK 71, 330 P.3d 1216. On June 15, 2015 Knight's license to practice law was suspended for nonpayment of his Oklahoma Bar Association dues. In the Matter of Suspension of Members of the Oklahoma Bar Association for Nonpayment of Dues, 2015 OK 46 (S.C.B.D. No. 6272). Knight's license to practice is currently suspended. ¶32 The Complaint alleges the prior discipline with a reference to this Court's opinion. The Court may consider prior discipline for the purpose of enhancement of discipline.37 When the Bar seeks enhancement of discipline based upon former discipline it must allege the former discipline for the purpose of enhancement to give notice to the respondent.38 Pleading the prior discipline in the Complaint gives notice to a respondent that the prior discipline may be used for enhancement purposes.39 Knight's previous conduct resulting in prior discipline was before the trial panel. ¶33 In lawyer discipline proceedings the Court utilizes a complete record and seeks to impose equal or uniform discipline in order to avoid the vice of disparate treatment given to those being disciplined.40 We have examined the record. Knight had notice of his suspension prior to his court appearances.41 Discipline imposed for the practice of law while the lawyer was suspended by this Court has varied because of the additional violations of the ORPC that are found in all of these opinions, and discipline has ranged from public censure to disbarment.42 ¶34 We have recently stated "We have 'generally imposed severe discipline for the unauthorized practice of law by a lawyer whom we have suspended.'"43 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Running,44 the respondent also did not cease practicing law upon suspension for non-payment of dues or inform his clients as required by Rule 9.1.45 The lawyer in Running was suspended for two years and one day. ¶35 Knight practiced law after his license had been suspended for one year in a disciplinary proceeding. Knight failed to notify his clients and knowingly represented himself to the trial court as a licensed lawyer when he knew he had been suspended. Knight failed to fully cooperate with the Bar's investigation. Knight has received previous discipline. We have considered Knight's recommendation that his conduct warrants a license suspension of one year. ¶36 A lawyer practicing law in criminal matters should not need the trial judge and assistant district attorney to monitor the lawyer's status as a lawyer and request the lawyer's withdrawal after being suspended by this Court. The Bar's allegations of Knight's misconduct are admitted except as limited herein. We hereby impose a suspension of Knight's license to practice law for a period of two years and one day commencing on the date this opinion is final. ¶37 The Bar filed an application pursuant to Rule 6.16 to assess costs against Knight in the amount of one-thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-six cents ($1,854.96). Rule 6.16 provides the costs of the investigation, record and disciplinary proceedings shall be surcharged against the disciplined lawyer, unless remitted for good cause by this Court.46 The Bar's application is granted. Rule 6.16 requires the costs to be paid within ninety (90) days. Knight is ordered to pay costs in the amount of one-thousand, eight hundred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-six cents ($1,854.96) within ninety (90) from the date this opinion is final. VII. Conclusion ¶38 Knight violated the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Knight's license to practice law is suspended for two years and one day commencing on the date this opinion is final. Knight shall pay costs in the amount of $1,854.96 within ninety from the date this opinion is final. ¶39 REIF, C. J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, COLBERT, and GURICH, JJ, concur. ¶40 COMBS, V. C. J., WATT and TAYLOR, JJ, dissent. ¶41 COMBS, V. C. J., joined by WATT and TAYLOR, JJ.: I would disbar the respondent. FOOT