Opinion ID: 1122989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the attorney's misconduct, her disciplinary history, discipline administered in similar cases, and the total disregard for the disciplinary process warrant disbarment and the payment of costs in the amount of $1,134.80.

Text: In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction. [15] We are not bound by agreed findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline. [16] Our review is de novo in considering the record presented as well as the recommendations for discipline. [17] The responsibility of this Court in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish but to inquire into and to 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. [18] This Court has not considered facts identical to those presented. However, in similar situations, we have administered discipline ranging from a ninety-day suspension to disbarment. [19] In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Phillips, 786 P.2d 1242, 1246 (Okla. 1990), an attorney with no prior disciplinary history was suspended for three years for neglect of a legal matter, failure to answer a grievance, and failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from the Bar Association. We disbarred the lawyer in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McCurtain, 767 P.2d 427, 430 (Okla.1989) [20] for neglecting client matters, by either converting client property or failing to account for it, and for refusing to cooperate with the investigation of those matters, while under suspension for neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the grievance investigation. The respondent's situation most closely resembles the facts presented in McCurtain. Like McCurtain, the respondent has been disciplined before. In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Meek, 895 P.2d 692, 694-95 (Okla.1994) ( Meek I ), the respondent was suspended for one year for misconduct similar to the actions giving rise to the grievances filed here: failure to communicate with clients, mishandling of client funds and making misrepresentations to the Bar Association in the grievance process. Here, the respondent is again charged with multiple counts of misconduct  at least one of which involves charging of a fee unsupported by her work product. The respondent made misrepresentations to the Bar Association about supplying requested information, she has refused to participate in the grievance process, and she has not complied with the regulations governing her prior suspension. [21] The respondent has not argued that this complaint should have been merged with the complaint in Meek I. Even if that were the case, the respondent's delay in responding to this grievance, and her failure to respond to requests for documents would have prevented a simultaneous consideration of the two complaints. [22] We find that the respondent's misconduct, her disciplinary history, discipline administered in similar cases, coupled with her disregard for the grievance process warrants disbarment. The Bar Association submitted an application to assess costs of $1,134.80 on August 27, 1996, which are approved. [23]