Opinion ID: 2633144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conduct Regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Competency in the Law.

Text: ¶ 22 DeBacker admits to the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed not to file a complaint for such conduct as long as he ceased the practice of law altogether. The unauthorized practice of law violates the rules of professional conduct, thereby exposing an attorney to disciplinary sanctions. [30] Rule 5.5, Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S.2001 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, addresses the unauthorized practice of law and provides in pertinent part: a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so. . . . ¶ 23 Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. [31] It is in the public's interest that this Court prohibit attorneys from performing illegal acts such the unauthorized practice of law. [32] When considering reinstatement, we look at whether the petitioner has engaged in any unauthorized practice of law [33] regardless of whether it occurred within the State of Oklahoma, or in another jurisdiction. [34] Attorneys who have engaged in unauthorized practice have resigned from the Bar Association, [35] been denied reinstatement, [36] or have been subject to discipline ranging from a public censure to disbarment depending on mitigating circumstances. [37] Two of these cases involve lawyers who were suspended for the nonpayment of dues and who engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. ¶ 24 In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. O'Neal, 1993 OK 61, ¶ 18, 852 P.2d 713, the Court publicly censured an attorney who, after being suspended for nonpayment of bar dues and noncompliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements, filed two voluntary bankruptcy petitions on behalf of clients. The attorney filed the petitions only after seeking other attorneys to handle the matters. When he could not obtain any other counsel, rather than leave his clients without representation, he filed the petitions. Because there was no injury to the clients, the attorney did not act out of selfish motive, and there was no other evidence of prior discipline, the Court administered a public censure. ¶ 25 In Matter of Reinstatement of Turner, 1999 OK 72, ¶ 22, 990 P.2d 861, we denied reinstatement to a lawyer who was suspended for failure to pay dues and comply with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirements. The lawyer had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the suspension by representing two defendants in criminal matters and acting as the City Attorney for the City of Holdenville. The only evidence of competency and learning of the law presented was that the attorney had attended twenty-four hours of continuing education four years earlier and read the Oklahoma Bar Journal and other legal articles. ¶ 26 Here, while working for the corporation, DeBacker never stepped foot in a courtroom to represent the corporation, nor does it appear the corporation was injured by the fact that he was not licensed. In addition to attending continuing legal education, DeBacker presented numerous letters recommending reinstatement from attorneys who have known DeBacker for many years and who had first hand knowledge of his legal skills, character, and competence. We are convinced that DeBacker has meet his overall burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that he should be reinstated. However, we are persuaded by previous cases that some form of discipline should be imposed for his misrepresentations and unauthorized practice of law. Considering that the misrepresentations were neglectful, but not intentional, and that he voluntarily withdrew from practicing law on April 10, 2007, and self-reported to the Ohio Supreme Court, his reinstatement will be deferred until April 10, 2008, which results in a one-year suspension from the practice of law.