Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MORGAN
Citation: 2022 OK 8
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: January 24, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MORGAN Annotate this Case IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF MORGAN 2022 OK 8 Case Number: SCBD-6981 Decided: 01/24/2022 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. In the matter of the REINSTATEMENT OF MICHAEL STEVEN MORGAN to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys: MICHAEL STEVEN MORGAN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent. ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT On February 7, 2013, Petitioner, Michael Steven Morgan, was subjected to an immediate interim suspension in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Morgan, SCBD No. 5964 (Okla. filed Jan. 30, 2013), after this Court received notice that he was convicted on one count of Theft or Bribery in Programs Receiving Federal Funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) in the case of United States v. Morgan, No. 5:11-cr-00108-C (W.D. Okla. filed Mar. 30, 2011).1 The imposition of final discipline was postponed during the pendency of Petitioner's appeal of this conviction.2 After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed his conviction, Petitioner obtained this Court's approval to resign pending disciplinary proceedings on August 2, 2016.3 But the Court deemed his resignation effective as of February 7, 2013--meaning he would be eligible to apply for reinstatement as early as February 7, 2018.4 On September 25, 2020, Petitioner applied for reinstatement. As required by Rule 11.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, a panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) held a hearing on Petitioner's application on April 28, 2021.5 In their report filed pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the RGDP on July 12, 2021, the panel found: (a) "that the Petitioner has not been involved in the unauthorized practice of law" in light of "clear and convincing evidence" that included his personal affidavit and testimony that he had not practiced law since being suspended, the testimony of his close friends and former colleagues and current co-workers to the same effect, and the testimony of the OBA investigator that there was no evidence to the contrary;(b) "that the Petitioner possesses the competence and learning in the law sufficient for reinstatement" in light of "clear and convincing evidence" that since 2016 he had taken nearly 150 hours of CLE, including 13.5 hours of ethics;(c) "that the Petitioner possesses the moral character which would entitle him to be admitted to the OBA" in light of the "clear and convincing evidence" that his efforts to be reinstated are supported by a wide array of people who have known him for decades--including former Governor Brad Henry, retired Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Joseph Watt, former Oklahoma State Senator Glenn Coffee, District Judge Phillip Corley (Payne County), retired District Judge Donald Worthington (Payne County), District Attorney Laura Thomas (Logan and Payne Counties), and his current co-workers at Cactus Drilling Company--and that he has consistently sought "to make positive contributions . . . to the general community as well as the legal community," particularly as demonstrated by the testimony of District Attorney Laura Thomas about Petitioner's help with a juvenile delinquent program being developed in Payne County; and(d) that Petitioner has "complied with all rule-mandated requirements for reinstatement."6 Based on these findings, the panel unanimously recommended that Petitioner be reinstated to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association upon payment of the fees and expenses of the investigation and hearing transcript.7 Petitioner paid all costs associated with this matter (i.e., $84.41) three days later.8 Nevertheless, Respondent maintains its opposition to Petitioner's application for reinstatement. Upon de novo review of the record, we find: (1) Petitioner has complied with the procedural requirements necessary for reinstatement;(2) Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law since the effective date of his resignation;(3) Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement without re-examination; and(4) Petitioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the good moral character and fitness necessary for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association. Petitioner has made a considerable effort to rehabilitate himself and the image of the legal profession. Furthermore, this Court has already "categorically reject[ed]" the argument "that a disbarred attorney, guilty of a particularly egregious offense against the legal profession, would be forever barred as incapable of any meaningful rehabilitation. . . . 'Such a harsh, unforgiving position is foreign to our system of reasonable, merciful justice. It denies any potentiality for reform of character.'" In re Reinstatement of Cantrell, 1989 OK 165, ¶ 6, 785 P.2d 312 , 314 (quoting In re Alger Hiss, 333 N.E.2d 429 , 434 (Mass. 1975)). Petitioner's conviction for accepting a bribe--although serious--should be no bar to his reinstatement. As U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron observed at Petitioner's original sentencing, "all of the evidence [in the underlying criminal case] is as consistent with innocence as it is with guilt. There is certainly a view you could take that would indicate that Mr. Morgan knew what he was doing was wrong and that it was wrong. There is an equally persuasive view, in my opinion, that everything he did was right and not illegal."9 She further observed, "Clearly, [Mr. Morgan] w[as] charged with a lot, [and] w[as] convicted with very little. And that conviction, as [his criminal lawyer] has pointed out today, was based on some very suspect evidence, based on the testimony of a convicted felon, resulting in a bill [i.e., SB 738] that no one has ever complained about."10 These statements, along with Petitioner's lack of involvement in SB 738 after its introduction, serve as mitigating factors that lessen the degree of seriousness posed by the "bribery" for which Petitioner was convicted. The petition of Michael Steven Morgan for reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association is therefore GRANTED, and his membership shall be reinstated. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022. /s/ Yvonne Kauger ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, Combs, and Gurich, JJ., concurring. Darby, C.J., and Rowe (by separate writing) and Kuehn, JJ., dissenting. Kane, V.C.J., not participating. FOOT