Opinion ID: 2524356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: false statements to the court

Text: ¶ 54 In the amended complaint, the OBA alleges that in July of 2006, Respondent intentionally made false statements in testimony before a court in violation of Rule 4.1 of the ORPC. [33] At the hearing, the OBA moved that Count VII be dismissed. Other than the stipulations, there is no evidence supporting this count. The PRT, to the extent of its authority, granted the motion to dismiss Count VII. In the OBA's brief to this Court, it attempts for the first time to assert Respondent's testimony was a simple error, rather than an intentional act as it had argued, which Respondent failed to correct in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the ORPC. ¶ 55 For three reasons, the OBA's request for discipline under Rule 3.3(a)(1) is not well taken. First, Rule 3.3(a)(1) at the time of the alleged misconduct, July of 2006, provided: A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. In support of its position the OBA cites to the amendment to Rule 3.3(a)(1) which became effective on January 1, 2008, after the alleged misconduct. [34] The OBA in its brief states the testimony may have been given in simple error and, under 3.3(a)(1), Respondent had a duty to correct the error. Simple error is insufficient to constitute knowledge under Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the 2001 ORPC, and we will not find Respondent violated a rule enacted after the alleged misconduct. Besly, 2006 OK 18 at ¶¶ 34-35, nn. 17-18, 136 P.3d at 602-603. ¶ 56 Second, this Court will not entertain allegations first alleged in the OBA's brief to this Courtin this case that Respondent failed to correct a simple error. Due process requires a lawyer charged with professional misconduct must be given notice of the charges in a timely manner. Id. at n. 18, 136 P.3d at 603, n. 18. ¶ 57 Third, Respondent did not stipulate that he had committed a simple error which he failed to correct. This allegation was not part of the amended complaint to which Respondent stipulated. The OBA presented absolutely no proof of this allegation which first appeared in its brief to this Court. This Court will not discipline a lawyer for violation of a rule which was not in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct, where the factual and legal allegations appear for the first time in the OBA's brief to this Court, and where there is not even a scintilla of proof of the allegation.