Title: STATE ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
Citation: 183 P.3d 164, 2007 OK 67
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 18, 2007

STATE ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 2007 OK 67 183 P.3d 164 Case Number: 104587 Decided: 09/18/2007 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS, Petitioner, v. JAN CLARK, CSR #924, Respondent. Appeal from State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters ¶0 Based on allegations that the respondent, Jan Clark (shorthand reporter/Clark), failed to complete a transcript of a preliminary hearing in a criminal matter, the petitioner, State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Board), instituted a disciplinary proceeding. After two failed attempts to notify the shorthand reporter of the pending complaint, Clark was served by a private process server. Nevertheless, the shorthand reporter did not respond to the complaint nor did she appear at the hearing before the Board. Based on the failure of the respondent to either produce a completed transcript of the criminal proceeding or to respond to official inquiries, the Board recommended that Clark's enrollment as a certified shorthand reporter be cancelled. Upon a de novo review of the clear, convincing and uncontested evidence, we hold that failure of a court reporter to complete a transcript in a criminal proceeding having ramifications on the defense warrants license revocation. LICENSE REVOKED. Patricia A. Podolec, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for complainant. No appearance entered for respondent. WATT, J: ¶1 The single issue presented is whether the shorthand reporter's license should be revoked for failure to complete a transcript in a criminal proceeding. Upon de novo review FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Clark recorded the testimony at a preliminary hearing held on May 21, 2004. Amos E. Black, III (Black) represented two of three defendants involved in the criminal proceeding. Because there were multiple defendants, Black was excused while testimony was taken concerning the third defendant's involvement. Black's clients informed him, and he believes, that the testimony taken during this portion of the preliminary hearing weighs significantly upon the lawfulness of the arrest and the search of his clients' residence. Black is convinced that his clients' freedom hinges on the testimony offered after he was excused from the courtroom. ¶3 Black ordered a copy of the entire transcript, including the portion of the hearing from which he was excluded. On July 17, 2004, he received a copy of the transcript. Eleven months later, on June 1, 2005, Black notified Clark that the transcript provided was incomplete and did not contain testimony critical to his clients' defense. When the shorthand reporter did not respond to his letter, Black made numerous other attempts to contact her. Clark did not reply to any of these inquiries. ¶4 On October 24, 2005, Black filed a complaint with the Board. Between January 9th and February 25th of 2006, the Board made two attempts to contact Clark concerning the complaint. When there was no response to the first inquiry and the second letter came back "unclaimed," the Board directed that the letter be served by private process server. Service was accomplished on May 15, 2006. However, the shorthand reporter did not respond to the Board's inquiry. ¶5 The Board scheduled a hearing set for April 13, 2007, to review the facts surrounding Black's complaint. ¶6 The Board presented evidence of service of the administrative decision and record upon Clark on June 28, 2007. On that same date, the Board filed a waiver of its right to brief the matter requesting that the cause be decided on the administrative decision and record. Just as there was no response to inquiries by Black or the Board, Clark has not responded to our June 22nd order. ¶8 The failure of the court reporter to complete a transcript in a criminal proceeding having ramifications on the defense warrants license revocation. ¶7 Clark has presented no defense to any of the allegations of neglect nor has the court reporter given any guidance on the appropriate discipline to be imposed. The Board asserts that Clark's failure to respond to inquiries concerning the missing transcript and the harm which may be suffered by the defendants in the underlying cause warrants license revocation. We agree with the Board's recommendation. ¶8 We review the record evidence presented de novo ¶9 In Oklahoma State Bd. of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Thompson, ¶10 Upon our independent review, we determine that the appropriate discipline is that imposed in Thompson and revoke the court reporter's license. Our decision is supported by the clear, convincing and uncontradicted evidence. CONCLUSION ¶11 We are not bound by the Board's findings, recommendations and conclusions. LICENSE REVOKED. WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, TAYLOR, COLBERT, JJ., concur. FOOT