Title: State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Robb
Citation: 1997 OK 84, 68OBJ2207, 942 P.2d 196
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 1997

State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Robb Annotate this Case State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Robb 1997 OK 84 942 P.2d 196 68 OBJ 2207 Case Number: SCBD # 4219 Decided: 06/24/1997 Supreme Court of Oklahoma STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, vs. MARK GREGORY ROBB, Respondent. BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ¶0 After the respondent failed to answer written grievances from three of his clients for neglect of clients' business, which the clients made to the Bar Association, the respondent failed to respond to subpoenas evidenced by his failure to appear at two depositions, and nor did he appear for his hearing. His actions leave the allegations admitted. The Bar Association and the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a two year and one day suspension. RESPONDENT SUSPENDED. COSTS IMPOSED. Janis Hubbard, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant; Respondent not appearing. ALMA WILSON, Justice: ¶1 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent, Mark Gregory Robb, with three counts of failure to respond, after numerous attempts to allow the respondent to answer formal grievances by three of the respondent's clients. Even after the complainant filed its complaint, the respondent took no action. On the date set for the hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal heard the evidence without the respondent present, and found based on clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 8.1(b) ¶2 In Count I of the Complaint, the Bar Association reported that it received a written grievance from Jill S. Erickson against [942 P.2d 197] the respondent for neglect. ¶3 In Count II, the Bar Association states it received a written grievance on April 25, 1996, from Edgar Summers forwarded by the Tulsa County Bar Association against the respondent. ¶4 For Count III, the Bar Association alleged a continuation of the failure to respond, as in the first two counts. The Bar Association received on May 28, 1996, a written grievance from Manuel L. Peeples, Jr., against the respondent for neglect. ¶5 On October 20, 1996, at 1:50 p.m., the respondent was personally served with the Complaint, and a letter informing him that if he did not answer the complaint within twenty days, the charges against him would be deemed admitted. The papers included a Notice of Selection and Appointment of Trial Panel and Notice of Setting and Notice of Hearing. The proceeding was set for November 27, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. at the Bar Center on North Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City. The respondent made no reply, verbal or written. He did not appear at the hearing. ¶6 The Bar Association presented one witness, an investigator for the Bar Association, and offered 25 exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted and admitted. The evidence supported the allegations made in the complaint. The exhibits reveal that the respondent was suspended from the practice of law at the time of the November 27th hearing for failure to pay 1996 membership dues to the Bar Association, and failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement for the year 1995. The letters to the Bar Association concerning the grievances of respondent's clients were also included. ¶7 The ultimate decision of the discipline to impose upon a lawyer in a bar matter rests with this Court after a de novo review of the record. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Butler, 903 P.2d 872, 875 (Okla. 1995); State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Carpenter, 863 P.2d 1123 , 1128 (Okla. 1993). Our review of the record reveals that the respondent has completely ignored the obligations he has pursuant to Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The grievances concerning neglect of cases, if proven, would violates Rule 1.3 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client," Rule 1.4, "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information," and Rule 1.15 concerning the safekeeping of property. But the respondent appears to have so little concern for his license that he has ignored not only the attempts of his clients to contact him, but also those of the Tulsa County Bar Association, and the General Counsel for the Oklahoma Bar Association. ¶8 It would appear that the respondent has abandoned the practice of law. He does not even offer any mitigation for his actions. In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCoy, 912 P.2d 856 (Okla. 1996) the respondent involved had nine counts of professional misconduct charged against him. Like the respondent in the case at bar, he never answered the complaints against him, responded in any manner to the proceedings, did not appear at the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, nor file a brief with this Court. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal in that case recommended disbarment, and the Bar Association urged this Court to accept the recommendation. McCoy, 912 P.2d at 857. With all Justices concurring, we held: "The Respondent's utter disregard for the responsibilities placed on him as a lawyer and for the procedures of this Court leave us no alternative other than to accept the recommendation of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal and order Respondent's disbarment." McCoy, 912 P.2d at 857. Unlike McCoy, the respondent in the case at bar was not charged with the neglect stated in the grievances, but only with the failure to respond to the Bar Association's investigation of the grievances. [942 P.2d 197] ¶9 Complainant's Brief in Chief concludes that this Court should adopt the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended discipline of the Trial Panel. As in McCoy, we agree with this recommendation. Respondent must timely pay the costs incurred in this proceeding as a condition of reinstatement, in the amount of $603.65, pursuant to Rule 6.16 Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1991, ch. 1, app. 1-A. ¶10 RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. ¶11 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, WILSON, and WATT, JJ., concur. ¶12 OPALA, J., with whom HODGES, and SIMMS, JJ., join, concurring in part, dissenting in part. ¶13 I concur in today's imposition of discipline; I would visit on the respondent a much more severe sanction. FOOT