Title: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHANBOUR
Citation: 195 P.3d 31, 2008 OK 62
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 24, 2008

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHANBOUR Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHANBOUR 2008 OK 62 195 P.3d 31 Case Number: SCBD-4781 Decided: 06/24/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association Complainant v. STEPHEN FARRIS SHANBOUR Respondent BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ¶0 Respondent petitions for modification of an order that the respondent stands disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys. This petition was filed subsequent to the trial court's grant of post-conviction relief and the modification of respondent's criminal judgments from felony to misdemeanor convictions. Upon examination of the papers on file, we deny the respondent's petition and decline to modify the order imposing his disbarment. RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIOR ORDER IMPOSING DISCIPLINE IS DENIED Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. J. David Ogle, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent. OPALA, J. ¶1 This cause is reached for consideration on respondent's petition for modification of this court's outstanding order that imposes disbarment. I INTRODUCTION TO THE RECORD ¶2 There is no formal process in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) for post-rehearing modification of a prior disciplinary pronouncement. ¶3 In November 2002 Stephen Farris Shanbour (respondent or Shanbour), at that time a licensed attorney, was convicted in Oklahoma County District Court of and sentenced in punishment for ten (10) criminal charges. ¶4 On April 2, 2007 the District Court of Oklahoma County entered an order granting post-conviction relief and directing nunc pro tunc modification of the respondent's criminal judgment and sentence. The court found that the misdemeanor section's provision in ¶5 As a result of the change in his judgment and sentence upon nine (9) of the criminal convictions, the respondent petitions for the modification of the order of discipline imposed previously from that of disbarment to a one (1) year suspension to be applied retroactively to the date of original disbarment, January 27, 2003. II DISCUSSION ¶6 In this Court's Order disbarring the respondent we described the nature of the crimes as follows. In essence, at some time in the fall of 1998 respondent began a relentless campaign to harass a former secretary (R.H.). The harassment expanded to include R. H.'s boyfriend (T.H.) and the boyfriend's daughter (A.H.), who was approximately eleven (11) years old. Respondent's criminal behavior began because he became obsessed with R.H. and the criminal activity continued until approximately July 2000 when he was arrested. The pre-sentence investigation report in the criminal case (submitted to us in this matter by respondent), plainly indicates that respondent knew the wrongfulness of his misconduct. The intended victim of the four attempted distribution counts to which respondent plead guilty was A. H., the minor daughter of T. H. The materials respondent was using to harass or attempt to harass his victims include his "writings", which he mainly placed on cards and/or postcards mailed to his victims. These materials include some of the most vile language imaginable. It is plain from our review of the pre-sentence investigation report that, at least, some of the materials were, at a minimum, impliedly threatening and caused fear in one or more of the victims. Further, in one case, in essence, the material accused T. H. of child molestation. The only reason A.H. did not actually view respondent's abhorrent "writings" was that T. H. was able to intercept the mail at their residence before his daughter was exposed to it. As to the five distribution counts to which he plead guilty, one involved material sent to R. H., one to T. H., one to T. H.'s boss, and one each to two other women. ¶7 We found that at a minimum the respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC) which states "it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." ¶8 The fact that the respondent's misconduct has more recently been described as a misdemeanor rather than a felony has no effect on this court's decision to disbar the respondent. We acknowledge that in no prior disciplinary case has an attorney been disbarred for committing a misdemeanor. We also recognize that "[i]n determining the proper discipline this Court compares the circumstances of the involved case with those of similar previous disciplinary cases involving other attorneys." ¶9 The respondent's conduct was found to violate Rule 8.4(b) of the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP. Neither rule, in its text or in comment, distinguishes criminal conduct statutorily labeled a felony from that which is labeled a misdemeanor. ¶10 The respondent's "conduct involved multiple victims and occurred over a lengthy period of time." ¶11 In his petition for modification of the order imposing discipline respondent asserts that he has been treated by a psychiatrist, is presently sound of mind, has recovered from his depression and obsessive behavior, and continues to take medication and follow treatment. Similar materials were reviewed in mitigation when this court disbarred the respondent. III SUMMARY ¶12 In sum, it was the nature of the misconduct committed by the respondent that led to his disbarment, not merely the felony label attached to them by law. After a complete review of the papers on file, we find and direct that ¶13 RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF PRIOR ORDER IMPOSING DISCIPLINE IS DENIED. ¶14 WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, TAYLOR and COLBERT, JJ., CONCUR FOOT