Title: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUMMEL
Citation: 2004 OK 30, 89 P.3d 1105
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2004

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUMMEL Annotate this Case STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. HUMMEL 2004 OK 30 89 P.3d 1105 Case Number: SCBD-4736 Decided: 04/20/2004 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. CATHERYN HUMMEL, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE ¶0 Complainant filed a Complaint alleging six counts of attorney misconduct by Respondent warranting discipline. The parties filed Stipulations as to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Discipline. Mitigation was considered due to Respondent's condition of clinical depression. Respondent has received two previous private reprimands from the Professional Responsibility Commission for neglect of a client and unprofessional conduct, and for failing to respond within twenty days after receiving a grievance from Complainant. Her license is currently suspended for failure to pay annual Bar dues and for the failure to comply with MCLE requirements. Complainant and the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a one-year suspension of Respondent's license, in addition to the costs of this proceeding. OPINION WATT, Chief Justice: ¶1 The Complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (the Bar), filed a complaint against Respondent, Catheryn Hummel, a licensed attorney in Oklahoma, pursuant to Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A., for violations of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O.S. 2001, Ch.1, App. 3-A. Counts I through V represent grievances filed by five of Respondent's former clients. Count VI is based on allegations raised by the Bar for her failure to respond to the grievance in Count V. ¶2 Respondent and the Bar stipulated as to the facts, the rules she violated in each count, and the conclusions of law. They also stipulated that her misconduct constituted grounds for professional discipline and recommended a one-year suspension of Respondent's license and costs of the proceeding. They stipulated that she committed multiple violations of Rule 1.1, ¶3 Respondent was diagnosed with clinical depression. She is currently undergoing counseling and is taking medication for the condition. She testified she knows the depression contributed to her ability to represent her clients, although she did not offer it as an excuse for her behavior. She testified she began winding down her practice in September, 2001, and has not practiced since Spring, 2002. ¶4 In its Trial Panel Report, the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (the PRT) accepted the parties' Stipulations as to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the recommendation for discipline, except for the correction of restitution in Count V, incorrectly noted as Count IV, from $3,000.00 to $1,500.00. In reaching its recommendation of a one-year suspension, the PRT considered the mitigating factors of her depression condition, her treatment of that condition and her professed intention of making restitution. Also considered, however, were Respondent's two previous private reprimands from the Professional Responsibility Commission (PRC) COUNT I ¶5 Jennifer Jones hired Respondent to file and complete a motion to modify custody. Respondent filed the motion and represented Jones through some pre-trial proceedings. Respondent agreed to prepare a proposed settlement offer based on a psychologist's report required by the court, a proposed agreed order and a proposed Joint Custody Plan to opposing counsel. The proposed plan was rejected, as was the settlement. However, Respondent failed to communicate with Jones. When she finally communicated by letter, she told Jones the pretrial and trial dates had not been set because Jones had failed to answer the interrogatories filed almost a year earlier by Jones' former husband. However, Jones testified she had completed them and faxed them to Respondent's office shortly after receiving them. Jones also stated she tried to get in touch with Respondent from October, 2001 to March, 2002, but that Respondent never returned her phone calls. Because she was never able to get a trial date set, Jones fired Respondent and hired another attorney. Respondent's actions in Count I constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2, ORPC. COUNT II ¶6 Respondent was hired by George Allen in 1995 and 1996 to complete an appeal from a criminal conviction. She timely filed the appeal which was denied. In September, 1998, Allen requested Respondent to send his file to his sister so that he could begin pursuing a writ of habeas corpus. She failed to send the file. Beginning in March, 1999, Allen asked Respondent numerous times to forward his files, but she failed to respond. ¶7 Allen filed a grievance with the Bar which requested Respondent on November 5, 1999, to return the file in two weeks, which she failed to do. On December 15, 1999, Allen advanced Respondent $50.00 for the costs of mailing his file, with her agreement to return the excess money. As of June 8, 2000, Allen had not received his file, and the Bar asked Respondent again to communicate with Allen. However, she failed to respond, and the matter was opened for formal investigation on August 15, 2000. On November 11, 2000, she responded, stating she had to search for many of the files in storage, but would ship the files with an inventory to Allen. The Bar received a proof of mailing which it forwarded to Allen on November 30, 2000. However, he indicated on December 8, 2000, that the file he received was incomplete and that he had not received his refund. The total cost to send the file was $6.60, and the refund to Allen remains outstanding. Respondent's actions constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.15(b), ORPC, and Rule 5.2, RGDP. COUNT III ¶8 In October, 1999, Respondent was hired by Angela Gatz to file a motion to modify visitation with her minor son. Respondent filed the motion in November, 1999. Gatz's former husband responded and thereafter filed a motion to modify visitation, a motion for judgment for medical expense arrearage and a motion to modify child support. ¶9 The pre-trial conference was held a few months later. Respondent failed to appear, although Gatz was present, and Respondent's office was called. An assistant from her office appeared but was unable to conduct the pre-trial conference. Another pre-trial conference was held six months later. Four days before the next scheduled status conference was to be held, with the trial date already set, Respondent cancelled her appointment with Gatz. Respondent appeared at the trial on February 21, 2001, but Gatz was not present. The trial court entered an order, restricting Gatz's visitation with her son, increasing her monthly child support obligation and ordering her to be responsible for her son's medical bills. Additionally, the order indicated Respondent withdrew Gatz's Motion for Enforcement of Visitation Rights. ¶10 Gatz did not give Respondent authority to make the agreements she made on her behalf at the trial, although Gatz's former husband alleged that Respondent advised the court she was authorized to enter into a settlement of this matter. ¶11 In addition, the evidence supports a finding that Respondent misrepresented the facts to Gatz in violation of Rule 8.4(c), ORPC, although not charged in the complaint. "[A] stipulation by parties that a particular ethical violation occurred does not limit this Court's analysis to those ethical standards recognized or cited by the parties." State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Bolusky, RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; . . . . [Emphasis added.] ¶12 Only when Gatz' son told her that her visitation had been changed did she become aware that some judicial action had been taken against her. Even when Gatz confronted Respondent to inquire, she was told something which was not true, i.e., that there had been only a pretrial conference. Additionally, she led the court to believe she was authorized to make agreements on Gatz' behalf at the trial which ultimately led to a visitation order which was less favorable to her than the one in existence. COUNT IV ¶13 Connie Wells hired Respondent to represent her in divorce proceedings which were filed by Wells' husband. The Stipulations indicate Respondent had agreed to accept service for Wells. Respondent failed to answer the divorce petition after it was filed, and more than six months later, Wells filed a grievance with the Bar. It was opened for formal investigation on March 11, 2002. Almost three months later, Respondent filed an application in the district court to file an answer and counterclaim out of time on Wells' behalf, claiming that "Plaintiff has never formally served Defendant with said Petition for Divorce." The court granted the motion, granting an extension of 15 days until June 25, 2002. After the order was filed, Wells tried unsuccessfully to reach Respondent by telephone and in person at her office. Wells hired new counsel and requested her file from Respondent by certified mail, but she did not respond. A second certified letter was sent by Wells to Respondent on the day before the trial court's deadline for filing the answer and counterclaim, but she still failed to respond. Wells' new counsel filed an answer and counterclaim on the date they were due, June 25, 2002. Respondent never filed an answer to the divorce petition and never completed discovery. Respondent's actions constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 3.2, ORPC. COUNT V ¶14 Cheri Brooks, now Thomas, hired Respondent to file a contempt citation against her former husband for child support arrearage. Respondent prosecuted the contempt citation and successfully obtained $7,676.28 of unpaid child support for Thomas. She then asked Respondent to complete the adoption of Thomas's child on behalf of her new husband. It was agreed that part of the funds received from the contempt proceeding would be used to pay Respondent's fee for the adoption. She deposited the check into her trust account, retained $3,000.00 and wrote a check on her trust account for the remainder to Thomas. Respondent has failed to return Thomas' phone calls, and to this date, she has neither filed the adoption nor returned the retained funds to Thomas. At the hearing, Respondent testified that part of the $3,000.00 she retained was to be applied to an outstanding fee owed by Thomas. The Trial Panel Report of the PRT reflects the restitution amount should be $1,500.00, rather than $3,000.00. Respondent's actions constitute violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 3.2, ORPC. COUNT VI ¶15 In Count VI, an alleged violation of Rule 5.2, RGDP, the Bar made two unsuccessful requests of Respondent to respond in writing to Thomas as to the circumstances in Count V. After speaking with Assistant General Counsel Nathan Lockhart, Respondent agreed to provide a response, indicating there was "nothing to the grievance". However, she failed to respond until the Bar served her with a subpoena duces tecum, and took her deposition approximately two months after the grievance was filed. Respondent's actions constitute violations of Rule 5.2, RGDP. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶16 We review the evidence de novo to determine if the allegations of misconduct are established by clear and convincing evidence. Bolusky, supra. Respondent's depression has been diagnosed and is being treated with professional counseling and medication. We commend Respondent for understanding she needed help and obtaining this treatment. Although emotional or psychological disability may serve to reduce the actor's ethical culpability, it does not immunize one from imposition of discipline that is needed to protect the public. There must be a sufficient causal connection between the respondent's ethical lapses and the depression. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Schraeder, ¶17 Stipulations by the parties are considered in our review of the evidence, although our review includes an examination of the facts, stipulated or not. Bolusky, ¶18 We have reviewed the evidence and find that the stipulations, findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record. Additionally, we find that Respondent's depression was causally connected to her unethical conduct, beginning in most cases with neglect of a matter, which in turn led to more neglect. She stated, "[I] think what I did is I let my - - I let my shame of the situation get in the way of my responsibility or my accountability. It was sort of like a circular thing." She acknowledged the negative impact of the depression on herself and everyone around her, although she was not cognizant of that at first. She stated she feels a great sense of shame, guilt and remorse in letting down her clients. She will continue her treatment, not because of the complaint filed in this case, but for herself. Respondent's psychologist also believes her condition will continue to improve, stating in a letter admitted as Respondent's Exhibit 1, "With Ms. Hummel now actively engaged in therapy, her prognosis is good. I have no doubt that she will return to her previous high level of functioning with minimal interference from depressive symptoms. She has (by interview with family and peers) been able to function at a superior level without interference from her mood disorder. . . . I professionally believe, without reservation, that Ms. Hummel will be able to return to the legal profession (without impairment) in full capacity if she so desires." DISCIPLINE ¶19 After reviewing the record, including the transcript and exhibits, the Stipulations, and the Trial Panel Report, we find that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(b), 3.2 and 8.4(c), ORPC, and Rule 5.2, RGDP. ¶20 This Court has imposed discipline on lawyers for neglecting their clients' matters, ranging from public censure to two years' suspension. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Benefield, ¶21 This Court has held that appropriate punishment for the neglect of a client's case, without affirmative acts of misconduct, is public censure. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Brewer, [T]his case lacks the aggravating elements found present in the others. There is here no evidence that Braswell ever misrepresented anything, that he failed to return the client's calls or that after the matter had been brought to his attention he neglected to check on its status. The record is devoid of any affirmative acts of misconduct. It reveals neither hesitancy to disclose the true facts to the client nor falsehood uttered in giving misleading or incorrect information about the status of the claim in the lawyer's charge. [Emphasis in original.] ¶22 In the present case, it is undisputed that Respondent failed to return her clients' calls. In Count I, the Jones grievance, she neglected to get a trial date set on the motion to modify custody. Instead, Respondent told Jones she was waiting for Jones' answers to interrogatories. She neglected to return her phone calls or to complete the work for which she was hired. In Count II, Allen waited for Respondent to send his file in a criminal matter for more than one year, after advancing $50.00 to Respondent for the costs of doing so. In Count III, Respondent failed to disclose the true facts to Gatz about the entry of orders for child support, visitation and attorney fees, even misrepresenting the fact that there had not been a trial in the case. In Count IV, Respondent obtained an extension of the time to file an answer in Wells' divorce proceedings. When Wells could not reach Respondent by phone, she hired new counsel and attempted to obtain her file. After two certified letters from Wells requesting her file went unanswered, Wells' new counsel filed the answer and counter claim on the date they were due. ¶23 A recurrent theme among the grievances in this case is Respondent's failure to communicate with her clients to keep them informed of the status of their cases. Respondent's neglect also led to her clients' harm. Respondent entered into settlement agreements on behalf of Gatz in Count III for which she was not given authority. This violates Rule 1.2(a), ORPC. This led to the entry of judgment which was detrimental to Gatz because it increased her support obligations and restricted her visitation. Then, when asked about it, Respondent misrepresented the facts to her, violating Rule 8.4(c), ORPC. Moreover, Respondent failed to respond to a motion for attorney fees, which led to a default judgment against Gatz for more than $3,000.00, showing a lack of professional competence (Rule 1.1, ORPC) and diligence (Rule 1.3, ORPC). ¶24 Neglect also led to Respondent's violation of Rule 1.15(b), ORPC, in Count II, the Allen Grievance. After repeated requests for his file, Allen agreed to advance $50.00 to Respondent for her expenses in sending the file. Respondent agreed to return the excess money to Allen. Although the costs were only $6.60, and the remaining funds were kept in her trust account, Respondent has never returned the excess money. ¶25 Respondent also violated Rule 1.15(b) with regard to the Thomas grievance in Count V. She agreed to file an adoption proceeding and was paid, out of a child support award in Thomas's favor, the amount of $3,000.00. She never filed the adoption proceeding and has never returned the retainer. She claimed part of the retainer, approximately $1,500.00, was to be applied to previous attorney fees incurred by Thomas. Although Respondent never produced evidence to substantiate that claim, she testified that she had drafted and reviewed paperwork and had made telephone calls on Thomas' behalf. The Bar notes that Respondent was paid "at least One Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00)", which is in accord with the stipulation accepted by the PRT in its Trial Panel Report. IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT ¶26 While we find that a public censure would not be sufficient punishment for the degree of neglect found in this case, neither do we find that Respondent's conduct warrants a punishment of two years' suspension. See Benefield, supra. Additionally, we find no grounds to warrant disbarment, although suspension of two years and one day was ordered for multiple violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 3.2, ORPC, and Rule 5.2, RGDP in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Minter, ENHANCEMENT ¶27 Respondent was privately reprimanded by the PRC in two prior Bar matters. In OBAD #964, she neglected to answer within twenty days after the service of a grievance from the Bar, violating Rule 5.2, RGDP. In OBAD #1378, she was reprimanded for neglecting a client's case and for unprofessional conduct. It was stipulated that Respondent failed to respond to a motion for summary judgment resulting in a decision against her client and that she used loud and profane language in an argument with her client. MITIGATION ¶28 Respondent stated her depression affected her legal practice, but that she did not offer it as an excuse for neglecting her clients. Apparently, the neglect of one matter led to another, which had a circular effect. She testified she will continue to receive treatment in the form of therapy and medication for as long as it takes. She expressed remorse for her actions and for the difficulties her clients endured because of her conduct. CONCLUSION ¶29 Respondent's license to practice law is suspended for one year from the date this opinion becomes final. The Bar filed an application to assess the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1,039.82 against Respondent. The application is granted, and Respondent is ordered to pay this amount within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final. Respondent is also ordered to pay the $43.40 owed to Mr. Allen, and $1,500.00, representing the remainder of the $3,000.00 retainer, to Mrs. Thomas, in the same time period, if she has not already done so. WATT, C.J., LAVENDER, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, JJ. - CONCUR. OPALA, V.C.J., WITH WHOM HODGES and HARGRAVE, JJ. JOIN, DISSENTING IN PART: I would hold today that upon passage of the declared suspension period respondent not become eligible for license reinstatement until, following a PRT-conducted inquiry, the tribunal should report (and recommend) that this court find her free of present impairments and once again fit to practice law. KAUGER, J. - DISSENTS. FOOT