Title: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA
Citation: 2024 OK 33
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 2024

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BETHEA 2024 OK 33 Case Number: SCBD-7443 Decided: 05/14/2024 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. KENYATTA RAY BETHEA, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE PURSUANT TO RULE 7, RULES GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ¶0 Respondent pled guilty to a first time non-repetitive misdemeanor driving while under the influence of alcohol. Respondent collided with two different vehicles, injuring six people, three of whom were children, inflicting significant bodily harm. The Court issued an order of interim suspension in a professional disciplinary action filed under Rule 7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 1A. The Court referred this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) for a hearing. This matter is before us for final discipline. The PRT and Bar Association recommends a six-month suspension from the date of this Court's final order. We hold the record supports a finding that the appropriate discipline is a one-year suspension with credit for time served under the interim suspension. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED UNDER INTERIM SUSPENSION; COSTS IMPOSED. Jana J. Harris, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, and Katie Ogden, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, for Complainant. Thomas A. Paruolo, and Benjamin R. Grubb, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent. Edmondson, Justice. ¶1 The Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar) initiated proceedings pursuant to Rule 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A,1 by filing with this Court a Notice of Judgment and Sentence and attached certified copies of the Information, Probable Cause Affidavit, the Judgment and Sentence and Summary of Facts on Plea of Guilty Misdemeanor, Court minute Order, Supplemental Court Order: Community Service- Restitution- Court Cost Sentence, Deferred 3 years, and Rules and Conditions of Supervised Probation. This Rule 7 matter is before the Court for the imposition of final discipline. On June 5, 2023, we entered an order of interim suspension "having determined that good cause has not been shown for preventing entry of an Order of Immediate Suspension."2 Respondent has been under this interim suspension for eleven months. A trial panel hearing was conducted on December 5-6, 2023; the Trial Panel Report was issued January 8, 2024. This matter was fully briefed and ready for final discipline on March 14, 2024. Following a full review of the record, we conclude that the appropriate discipline is a one-year suspension from the date of the interim suspension with credit for time served under the interim suspension. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Respondent was arrested in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on January 6, 2021. The district attorney initially charged him on March 31, 2021, with two felonies: (1) leaving the scene of an accident with personal injury to multiple people, including two minors; and (2) felony driving under the influence of alcohol.3 The charge of leaving the scene of an accident was later dismissed by the district attorney and the felony charge of driving under the influence was reduced to a misdemeanor. It is irrelevant to this Rule 7 proceeding why the district attorney did not proceed with any charge associated with leaving the scene of an accident or any felony charge. On March 23, 2023, Respondent pled guilty in Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-21-1249 to one count: misdemeanor driving under the influence, 47 O.S.2021, §11-902. The trial court deferred judgment and sentence for a period of three years until March 22, 2026. Respondent was assessed a $250 judicial assessment, ordered to pay Victim Compensation Assessment, and court costs. He was also ordered to complete ADSAC DUI School, attend Victim Impact Panel and submit to a DUI assessment, all of which he had completed by the time of his plea. No additional restitution was ordered in the criminal judgment due to a civil settlement previously reached with the injured parties. ¶3 On April 5, 2023, this Rule 7 summary disciplinary proceeding was commenced when the General Counsel of the Bar filed the Notice of Judgment and Sentence in accordance with Rules 7.1 -- 7.7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2021, Ch.1, App. 1-A. A lawyer convicted of a crime is subject to discipline if the underlying conviction demonstrates such lawyer's unfitness to practice law. Rule 7.1, RGDP. On June 5, 2023, we entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension "having determined that good cause has not been shown for preventing entry of an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension."4 We assigned this matter to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) to hold a hearing and make a recommendation for final discipline. ¶4 The PRT held a hearing on December 5-6, 2023. Most of the relevant facts were undisputed, however the testimony revealed some factual errors in the arresting officer's Probable Cause Affidavit which will be discussed herein. Most exhibits were admitted without objection. Respondent preserved objections to all evidence introduced by the Bar relating to a 2015 car accident that resulted in no traffic citation and no disciplinary action or investigation. The OBA presented as witnesses: three police officers; the drivers of each of the two vehicles that Respondent hit; the OBA Investigator; and the person involved in the 2015 accident. ¶5 Respondent presented his personal physician; his licensed professional counselor; a board member with Lawyers Helping Lawyers; and four witnesses offering mitigation evidence, including an Oklahoma county district judge, a pastor, and two practicing lawyers. ¶6 It is undisputed that on the night of January 5, 2021, Respondent, who was sleep deprived, went to dinner with colleagues and had 3-4 alcoholic drinks over a few hours, and then drove under the influence of alcohol. Sometime before 8 p.m., Respondent fell asleep while driving, crossed the roadway's center line and hit two cars head-on, causing injury to six people, three of whom were children. One eight-year-old child required immediate surgery with the insertion of a metal rod in the upper leg and required at least 4 months of bedrest; this child continues to have leg pain in normal childhood activities. A second child has a facial scar running through an eyebrow to the nose that causes the child suffering. ¶7 Respondent walked away from the accident with his keys and wallet in his pockets, wandering onto an adjacent commercial parking lot; he did not check on or help any victim. Respondent testified when he heard a woman scream, he was afraid somebody had died, and he panicked. He did not provide his name or contact information to the victims. It is also undisputed that Respondent suffered a head injury and concussion, a diagnosis confirmed by the emergency room physician that night and subsequently by his treating physician. The uncontroverted evidence established that Respondent's behavior post-accident was out of character for him; there was medical evidence that his concussion "was [the] cause of some of his irregular behavior."5 Respondent's physician explained that a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects brain functioning including memory loss, headaches, difficulty thinking, concentration, balance, mood changes and poor decision making.6 Respondent's physician noted that he had a prior history of multiple concussions which was also a contributing and complicating factor.7 Respondent "exhibited many of the hallmark signs of a concussion at the scene of the accident, including slurred or incoherent speech, poor decision making and confusion."8 Respondent's memory of the events of that night are also limited, consistent with concussion. Further, Respondent's physician opined that Respondent did not exhibit any signs of ongoing alcohol abuse or dependence. The Bar offered no evidence to dispute Respondent's physician's medical testimony. One driver described Respondent after getting out of his car, as acting confused and "looking at me like he just woke up," and as if "you waking me up out of my sleep type thing."9 She also described Respondent as being "lost in his own blood and his face."10 ¶8 We learned from the testimony of the arresting officer, that the Probable Cause Affidavit contained several factual errors. Most notably, Respondent was not observed by witnesses to be "running" from the accident scene. It is undisputed that Respondent walked away from the accident scene but, he did not run away as the arresting officer erroneously reported in his Probable Cause Affidavit.11 The officer testified at the hearing that witnesses reported that Respondent was walking from the accident scene and no witness reported that he was "running" away, as referenced at least four times in his affidavit. The officer clarified at the PRT hearing, that on the night he was pursuing Respondent in his police SUV, the officer never turned on his sirens or his red and blue flashing lights, and never identified himself as an Oklahoma City Police Officer to Respondent. The Black SUV did have the words "POLICE" on the side of the vehicle, but these letters were not visible to Respondent who was in front of the vehicle at nighttime. The officer did have the spotlight activated on his patrol car. Although the Probable Cause Affidavit indicates that he yelled "stop" to Respondent, he testified this was not correct, he yelled "come here" without announcing he was a police officer. Respondent testified that it was night and dark outside; he had no idea who was driving behind him, also his glasses fell off during the accident leaving him "blind as a bat." Respondent had no idea he was being pursued by an Oklahoma City Police Officer and did not know who yelled at him to "come here." The officer continued to pursue Respondent on foot and took him to the ground and handcuffed Respondent. The officer noted that Respondent had "slurred speech, delayed response to questioning, and red watery eyes."12 We note that as soon as Respondent was taken to the ground by the officer and handcuffs placed, Respondent was "taken into custody without further incident."13 The officer claimed in his report that during the officer's pursuit, Respondent made "eye contact" with him and he assumed that Respondent knew he was a police officer. At the trial panel hearing the officer testified he had no knowledge about whether Respondent saw him or not. ¶9 After his arrest, Respondent completed the Impaired Driver Accountability Program through the Oklahoma Department of Safety. An Ignition Interlock Device was installed on his car as part of this program. Although he was required to have the device on his car for only six months, he kept it for eight months as he was "trying to take responsibility and accountability for what I did."14 ¶10 Respondent also voluntarily sought counseling to deal with varied and complex issues relating to the accident. The counselor diagnosed Respondent with post-traumatic stress disorder arising from early childhood events. He explained that "PTSD, trauma occurs when there is uncontrolled chemical and physical change to the body -- to the brain rather, as a result of a crisis incident."15 Respondent suffered multiple childhood crises "that resulted in trauma over an extended duration."16 Prior to the accident, Respondent was dealing with a number of situational life factors that affected his mental health, enhancing his trauma response; alcohol was not a contributing cause to enhancing his PTSD. His responses on the night of the accident were caused in part by his underlying PTSD. The counselor evaluated Respondent's alcohol consumption against the official medical criteria, the DSM-5, for alcohol abuse and dependence. Respondent did not meet the criteria for this diagnosis. The counselor opined that Respondent did not have a clinical problem with the use of alcohol. Following the accident, Respondent reduced his alcohol consumption by at least 80 percent (%) and altered the environment in which he consumes alcohol. In addition, he modified the people with whom he interacts; he now socializes with individuals who either do not drink or rarely drink alcohol. Respondent expressed remorse to his counselor over how his alcohol consumption and driving that night harmed others. ¶11 Respondent also voluntarily sought out one of the Board of Directors with the Oklahoma Bar Association's Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) Foundation. Respondent shared detailed information about his alcohol consumption with the LHL board member. This board member concluded that Respondent was not an alcoholic, although he had an alcohol-related incident. Based upon his conversation with Respondent and drawing from his personal experience and as a volunteer with the LHL program, he does not believe that Respondent meets the criteria of an alcoholic. The board member also discussed Respondent's sincere remorse over the harm caused from his drinking the night of the accident. Respondent's actions immediately after the accident that night are not representative of how Respondent normally conducts himself in personal and business matters. He was aware of several situational stressors Respondent was facing around the time of the accident, including health issues with his father, Respondent's divorce, and workload issues within his law firm. The board member also testified that Respondent is dedicated to serving the indigent and under-served individuals in the community and has a stellar reputation and work ethic. The Bar introduced no evidence to dispute the evidence that Respondent's actions were out of character for him. The Bar offered no evidence that any client matter was ever negatively impacted by his use of alcohol. ¶12 Respondent's four mitigation witnesses were all consistent, that Respondent's actions on the night of the accident were out of character. Testimony was offered regarding Respondent's use of alcohol in social settings, as well as his handling of his client responsibilities and advocacy. One district judge testified that she had known Respondent for a long time, and that Respondent has always had a heart for social justice and representing the under-served populations. She has never observed Respondent to show up impaired to any court appearance or any social gathering. She has never observed Respondent to drink to excess in any social situation and has no knowledge that he has an ongoing problem with alcohol. The Bar offered no evidence to dispute this testimony. ¶13 Over the objection of Respondent, the Bar introduced evidence regarding a 2015 car accident caused by Respondent. The Bar articulated that the purpose of this evidence was to establish that Respondent's prior behavior "reflects a pattern of conduct that reflects poorly on the profession of the law. It reflects a disrespect for the law and the duties and obligations that a lawyer has, particularly when involved in an accident in which they're at fault."17 There was no criminal citation issued from the 2015 accident, no prior criminal conviction or plea. More importantly, we note that was no prior bar investigation, no prior Rule 6 proceeding, no Rule 7 proceeding, and no prior discipline associated with this incident. For reasons discussed more fully herein, we sustain Respondent's objection to all testimony and documents relating to this 2015 event and disregard all such evidence. ANALYSIS ¶14 This Court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction to carry out its nondelegable responsibility to discipline lawyers and to regulate the practice of law in order to safeguard the interests of the public, the judiciary and the legal profession. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shofner, 2002 OK 84, ¶ 5, 60 P.3d 1024 , 1026. We exercise de novo review with respect to every aspect of a disciplinary inquiry. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Cooley, 2013 OK 42, ¶ 4, 304 P.3d 453 , 454. The professional discipline imposed is based upon the respondent's conduct, any prior history of respondent's professional misconduct, and the discipline imposed upon other lawyers for similar acts of misconduct. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wright, 2023 OK 1, ¶ 13, 523 P.3d 1106, 1109, citing State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith, 2016 OK 19, ¶ 36, 368 P.3d 810, 818. ¶15 A lawyer may be disciplined for "professional misconduct" as defined in the Rules of Professional Conduct.18 A formal disciplinary proceeding for lawyer misconduct "shall be brought by direction of the Professional Responsibility Commission," not by the Bar. Rule 6.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.19 The Bar has the discretion to institute an investigation based on facts or allegations involving a lawyer,20 but lacks the authority to independently bring a formal disciplinary proceeding under Rule 6. A bar disciplinary proceeding brought under Rule 6 shall be brought by direction of the Professional Responsibility Commission (PRC).21 The limited ways to enhance discipline include: (1) prior conduct resulting in discipline, or (2) evidence from prior investigations, neither of which we have in this matter. In order to provide due process, any such enhancement must be pled in the Rule 6 Complaint; "the prior acts of conduct relied upon shall be set forth."22 The Bar has not initiated a Rule 6 proceeding in this matter. ¶16 By contrast, a summary proceeding under Rule 7 is authorized when a lawyer has "tendered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a deferred sentence plea agreement in any jurisdiction of a crime which demonstrates such lawyer's unfitness to practice law..."23 State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. Littlefield, 2023 OK 53, ¶ 6, 529 P.2d 185, 188; State ex re. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. Armstrong, 1990 OK 9, ¶ 11, 791 P.2d 815 , 819 (Armstrong I). Rule 7.2 provides: Transmittal of Record Relating to Conviction The clerk of any court within this State in which a lawyer is convicted or as to whom proceedings are deferred shall transmit certified copies of the Judgment and Sentence on a plea of guilty, order deferring judgment and sentence, indictment or information and judgment and sentence of conviction to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association within five (5) days after said conviction. The documents shall also be furnished to the Chief Justice by the General Counsel within five (5) days of receiving such documents. Such documents whether from this jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules. Rule 7.2, RGDP, 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1 app. 1-A). The sole crime we consider in this Rule 7 proceeding is "misdemeanor DUI," the only "crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based." ¶17 The Rule 7 proceeding is a streamlined process that does not require the scrutiny or authorization of the PRC. The sole triggering event is not the decision of the PRC, but the fact that a lawyer has pled guilty to a crime where that specific crime "demonstrates such lawyer's unfitness to practice law."24 The "charge" of leaving the scene of the accident is not actionable under this Rule 7 proceeding; there has been no criminal conviction in this regard. However, because these actions may demonstrate a violation of our ethical rules, Rule 7.6 specifically notes that the PRC has full authority in "initiating and conducting disciplinary proceedings [Rule 6] upon charges identical to those set forth in a criminal complaint, indictment, or information, notwithstanding the pendency or final disposition of the criminal matter." 25 If a conviction is later overturned the Rule 7 proceeding "shall be dismissed immediately."26 This Court has no jurisdiction to consider a criminal charge under a summary Rule 7 proceeding; only convictions or pleas of guilty or nolo contendere are properly before this Court in such proceedings.27 The Bar has the authority to refer any such conduct to the PRC for evaluation and direction on pursuing a Rule 6 proceeding on any conduct that is concerning. There are no Rule 6 charges before us to consider with respect to "leaving the scene of an accident." ¶18 Following the trial panel's hearing in Armstrong I, we discussed that Armstrong had a prior conviction of a felony DUI, in 1989, as well as two prior convictions of misdemeanor DUI in 1985. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Armstrong, 1992 OK 79, 848 P.2d 538 (Armstrong II). He also suffered from the disease of alcoholism, had undergone rehabilitation, and he was actively engaged in treatment and the rehabilitation of others in the community, but he had no allegations of professional misconduct. Id. There was no evidence that Armstrong's use of alcohol impaired his ability to conduct efficiently or properly his client affairs, and no evidence that his crime adversely affected his practice of law. Id. We found no evidence that Armstrong was unfit to practice law and denied the Bar's request for discipline. Id., citing State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Jones, 1977 OK 118, 566 P.2d 130 . We also noted that a Rule 6 proceeding could be brought for any future acts of misconduct or failure to follow the terms of his sentence. ¶19 The Bar is urging that we consider the facts surrounding a criminal charge which did not result in a conviction, arguing that it relates to Respondent's "fitness" to practice law. A Rule 7 proceeding is not a gateway for summary discipline for any criminal charge; it is limited to convictions. This Court has no "prosecutorial authority over Bar discipline and cannot even obliquely cause the institution of a charge of professional misconduct."28 Our authority over professional discipline is conferred by the Constitution and by statute. In re Reinstatement of Fraley, 2005 OK 39, ¶ 33, 115 P.3d 842 , 851. This Court possesses original and exclusive jurisdiction in all disciplinary matters for all persons licensed to practice law in Oklahoma. Rule 1.1, RGDP. However, there are constitutional due process safeguards for all lawyers facing discipline. "We perform the legislative and adjudicative functions directly, but the enforcement or prosecutorial role is placed by our rules with the organs of the Bar in order to meet the demands of constitutional due process." Id. Because this Court "cannot constitutionally be both the judge and prosecutor, we may not control directly or indirectly those decisions made in the exercise of prosecutorial judgment as to whether to investigate and commence and prosecute charges."29 Id. The Bar has only sought discipline under Rule 7 for the misdemeanor conviction. ¶20 Next, the Bar has urged that we should consider as evidence of a "pattern of behavior" the fact that Respondent had a civil negligence action judgment against him involving a car accident. The Bar asserted that the plaintiff in the related negligence action, believed Respondent had been drinking or was under the influence at the time of the accident. This "belief" is not proper evidence for this Court to consider in this Rule 7 proceeding. Even in a formal disciplinary proceeding under Rule 6, we can only consider previously adjudicated lawyer "misconduct" where the facts are charged in the complaint and proved and the accused has been afforded an opportunity to rebut such charges.30 The General Counsel and Commission are authorized to include only such prior conduct that has (1) resulted in discipline; or (2) evidence from a prior investigation, as a means to enhance discipline.31 Respondent has no history of any prior lawyer discipline and there are no prior Bar investigations; there is no basis at all for "enhancement" as defined by the governing rules. ¶21 The scope of the inquiry in Rule 7 proceedings is limited to whether the crime demonstrates a lawyer's unfitness to practice law as we have carefully outlined above. State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. McBride, 2021 OK 61, ¶ 9, 500 P.3d 619, 622, citing State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n. v. Cooley, 2013 OK 42 ¶ 2, 304 P.3d 453 , 454. Although a criminal conviction for driving under the influence does not automatically establish an attorney's unfitness to practice law under Rule 7, our decisions in this area are guided by Rule 8.4 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S. 2021, ch. 1, app. 3-A. Id. We noted Rule 8.4 (b) defines professional misconduct to include a criminal act reflecting adversely on a lawyer's "honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer."32 Id.; see also, State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Conrady, 2012 OK 29, ¶ 7, 275 P.3d 133 , 136. ¶22 The Bar elected to file this disciplinary proceeding solely based on Rule 7, RGDP; the PRC opted to not proceed with a more expanded Rule 6 action. Respondent has never had any type of prior formal disciplinary action before this Court or formal investigation resulting in any type of finding of misconduct. The Bar has attempted to offer examples that relate to a prior car accident involving Respondent, where such prior accident resulted in no criminal conviction, no criminal charge, and no allegation of lawyer misconduct. While these prior actions could be the basis for the Bar or PRC to initiate an investigation and determine whether a formal Rule 6 action was warranted, they are not relevant to this Rule 7 proceeding. ¶23 In this Rule 7 matter, discipline can only be imposed if the crime demonstrates Respondent's unfitness to practice law.33 Although there is no evidence that Respondent has a chronic substance abuse problem, this misdemeanor crime involved alcohol and moreover, significant injury was inflicted upon innocent third parties, including minor children who have injuries that have ongoing impact in their lives. We have not considered a similar case with a first-time misdemeanor driving under the influence, with a car accident, causing injuries to multiple people and without evidence Respondent has a substance abuse problem. While this may be a misdemeanor offense, Respondent's actions had serious implications. The clear and convincing evidence before us establishes that Respondent is remorseful for his actions and has taken additional steps by leaving the Ignition Interlock Device on his car for an extra two months, he independently sought out counseling to learn better life coping skills and for healing chronic PTSD; he also sought out LHL help to ascertain whether he met criteria for that group, which he did not. There is no evidence that Respondent has a history of driving under the influence. The clear and convincing evidence before us is this a first time and very unfortunate accident, caused by Respondent's unmindful actions. ¶24 A similar case was found in Georgia where the lawyer, Calhoun was convicted of felony serious injury by vehicle and one count of felony driving under the influence of alcohol. Matter of Calhoun, 268 Ga. 877, 494 S.E.2d 335 (1998). The accident victim in Calhoun was left paralyzed from the neck down. Calhoun was given a six-month suspension. Although Respondent has only a misdemeanor driving under the influence conviction, he hit two separate cars head-on and inflicted serious injuries to six people, including three minor children who have lingering issues. No victim was left paralyzed as in Calhoun, but six different people were injured, with one child who faced a serious surgery with insertion of a steel pin in the leg and another is left with a scar on the face. Both children have ongoing repercussions from their injuries. We find the guidance in Calhoun comparable to the matter before us and find the appropriate discipline for Respondent is a one-year suspension from the date of the interim suspension with credit for time served in his interim suspension. ¶25 Respondent received a three-year deferred sentence until March 22, 2026, and was assessed monetary costs and fees, which he paid in full. Our decision is without prejudice to the Bar reopening this Rule 7 proceeding for discipline should the Respondent's deferred sentence be accelerated for any reason or from the Bar bringing a Rule 6 proceeding if directed by the PRC and a formal Complaint filed by the Bar. ¶26 The Bar filed an Application to Assess Costs, seeking the following: Certified mail $62.34, Court Transcript Expenses- $5661.40, PRT expenses - $278.90, Witness Travel Expense- $60, for total request of $5,923.64. The Bar's request for costs is granted in the amount of Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Three and Sixty-Four Cents ($5,923.64). The Respondent shall pay all costs within ninety days from the date this Opinion is adopted. We hereby order that Respondent's discipline is a one-year suspension from the date of the interim suspension with credit for time served during the interim suspension; Respondent is ordered to pay costs as directed. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE INTERIM SUSPENSION WITH CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED UNDER INTERIM SUSPENSION; COSTS IMPOSED. Kane, C.J., Rowe, V.C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, JJ., concur; Kuehn,J. (by separate writing), concurs in result; Combs (by separate writing) and Darby, JJ., concur in Part; dissent in part; Gurich, J., recused. FOOT