Opinion ID: 2330653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The attorney's misconduct warrants public reprimand and the imposition of costs.

Text: ¶ 29 Before addressing the appropriate discipline to be imposed for Townsend's misconduct, we find it necessary to comment on the manner in which the Bar Association handled this cause. The Bar Association made promises to Townsend it had no authority to make. Townsend had every right under the disciplinary rules to expect that as long as the matter remained simply a Rule 10 proceeding and this Court did not order otherwise, all proceedings would remain confidential. [30] However, the Bar Association apparently guaranteed confidentiality throughout the disciplinary process without any authority for doing the same [31] under circumstances where Rule 10.11 [32] and Rule 11.1, [33] construed together, specifically provide that a lawyer suspended because of personal incapacity shall [34] file a petition for reinstatement with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, a publicly accessible docket. [35] ¶ 30 The Supreme Court created the Oklahoma Bar Association and delegated the duty to investigate grievances filed against Oklahoma lawyers to the Association's General Counsel. This Court promulgates the rules under which the Bar Association functions. [36] It is the official arm of the Court when acting on its behalf. [37] Every aspect of the Bar Association's adjudicative process is supervised by our de novo consideration. [38] ¶ 31 This Court determines the appropriate discipline to be 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. [39] 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. [40] Discipline is fashioned to coincide with the discipline imposed upon other lawyers for like acts of professional misconduct. [41] 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. [42] ¶ 32 In similar causes involving attorneys determined to be incapable of practicing law, the breadth of discipline has been from public censure to suspensions of two years and one day. [43] Such suspensions are tantamount to disbarment in that the suspended lawyer must follow the same procedures for readmittance as would a disbarred attorney. [44] ¶ 33 Mitigating circumstances may be considered in the process of assessing the appropriate quantum of discipline. [45] When mental or physical conditions are presented as mitigating factors for assessment of one's culpability, there must be a causal relationship between the conditions and the professional misconduct. [46] Though emotional, psychological, or physical disability may serve to reduce the actor's ethical culpability, it will not immunize one from imposition of disciplinary measures that are necessary to protect the public. [47] ¶ 34 We are impressed with the Bar Association's investigator's tenacity in directing the attorney to a therapist through Lawyers' Helping Lawyers and with Townsend's willingness to seek and benefit from counseling sessions and appropriate medications. The majority of Townsend's wronged clients recommended that he be given a second chance. The attorney has repeatedly and sincerely expressed remorse for his actions. [48] Considering the attorney's misconduct, discipline imposed in similar causes, and the mitigating circumstances, we determine that the attorney should be disciplined by public reprimand. Townsend indicated to the trial panel that he would be happy to continue seeing his therapist through Lawyers Helping Lawyers. [49] We do not require the sessions as a condition of reinstatement. Nevertheless, we would suggest that those meetings take place on a regular basis for twelve months following the date of this opinion. [50] ¶ 35 The attorney recognizes his responsibility to pay the fees and expenses of the investigation, [51] specifically agreeing to cover the costs of the original and one copy of any transcripts. [52] The Bar Association filed a motion to assess costs of $1,657.41. Included in that figure is transcript expense of $1,390.50, for an original and two certified copies. [53] Because Townsend is responsible for the costs of the original and only one copy, we determine that he should pay $927.00 of that expense. [54] Therefore, the attorney is hereby ordered to pay $1,193.91 for the costs of these proceedings as a prerequisite to reinstatement.