Opinion ID: 2332947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: respondent's misconduct warrants suspension for a period of two years and one day and the payment of costs of the proceeding.

Text: ¶ 28 Discipline is administered to preserve public confidence in the bar. Our responsibility is not to punish but to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession. Discipline is imposed to maintain these goals rather than as a punishment for the lawyer's misconduct. [35] Disciplinary action is also administered to deter the attorney from similar future conduct and to act as a restraining vehicle on others who might consider committing similar acts. [36] Discipline is fashioned to coincide with the restrictions imposed upon other lawyers for similar acts of professional misconduct. [37] Although this Court strives to be even-handed and fair in disciplinary matters, discipline must be decided on a case-by-case basis because each situation involves unique transgressions and mitigating factors. [38] ¶ 29 Recently, we have been presented cases where it has been necessary to re-emphasize that the integrity of the judicial system demands lawyers, who are officers of the court, to respect its authority. [39] Our judicial power in bar disciplinary proceedings extends to the rules promulgated which govern the proceedings. Lawyers are subject to these rules and are required to promptly and adequately respond to allegations of misconduct when lawfully requested to do so. [40] We take a dim view of lawyers who disobey court orders. A lawyer whose pattern of neglect extends to disobeying an order from this Court in a disciplinary action cannot be allowed to hold responsibility for the legal affairs of others. [41] Similar causes involving conduct resembling the respondent's in his failure to adequately respond in grievance proceedings have resulted in discipline ranging from suspensions of two years and one day to disbarment. [42] ¶ 30 The trial panel noted that Latimer repeatedly failed to acknowledge the seriousness of his professional misconduct or to take any responsibility for his actions. They were concerned with his failure to effectively respond to the Bar Association's investigation and to participate in any resolution of the grievances. Making last-minute excuses, Latimer did not attend the hearing before the trial panel. The trial panel recommended a suspension for two years and one day. The Bar Association joins in the disciplinary recommendation. ¶ 31 We agree with the recommendation of the trial panel and the Bar Association. Suspension for two years and one day is consistent with discipline imposed upon other lawyers committing similar conduct. Latimer may seek reinstatement to the practice of law following his period of suspension under Rule 11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A. In addition, discipline having been imposed, the respondent stands charged with the payment of the costs of the proceeding. [43]