Opinion ID: 2332947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: mitigation and enhancement

Text: ¶ 23 The Bar Association presented no evidence of mitigation; however, the trial panel noted that Latimer is entitled to review of any factors that might serve to mitigate his discipline. We agree. ¶ 24 Mitigating circumstances may be considered in the process of assessing the appropriate quantum of discipline. [28] Although the Bar Association did not assert that there were mitigating factors to be considered in the cause, the Bar's prosecutor did acknowledge Latimer's service to under-represented members of the populace and his willingness to tackle unpopular causes. [29] This Court acknowledges and appreciates the attorney's illness during the span of the disciplinary proceedings, his military service, and the fact that he may have been subjected to actions of racial prejudice during his life span. [30] We recognize that his past reputation in legal representation was sound, [31] that he has been a pillar of the Tulsa community, and that some of his problems may arise from matters outside his control. [32] Nevertheless, we take exception to any and all allegations that the grievance procedure has been tainted by racial profiling or prejudice. There is absolutely no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent has not been afforded the identical due process available to all attorneys finding themselves in the unhappy position of having to answer to allegations of misconduct. ¶ 25 The difficulties during the investigation and hearing of the cause were created largely not because the respondent did not have the opportunity to participate but because he refused to do so. Latimer repeatedly ignored inquiries by the Bar Association and did not appear for the hearing before the trial panel. The attorney did not file an answer brief in response to this Court's order setting a briefing schedule. No appropriate response was filed concerning our show cause order relating to a conversion of the matter from a Rule 6 to a Rule 10 proceeding. ¶ 26 Just as we take into account matters in mitigation in a disciplinary proceeding, any discipline imposed for prior misconduct must also be part of the equation in fashioning the appropriate degree of discipline. [33] In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Latimer, 1972 OK 106, 499 P.2d 399, the respondent was suspended for three months for conduct the Court described as an aggravated case of neglect. In that cause, Latimer failed to make annual accounts, or to file a final account and petition for distribution and discharge until after numerous requests to conclude the estates had been made. He also commingled estate funds with his own. Here, the respondent blames his circumstances on what he characterizes as a prejudicial system of justice. In his prior disciplinary proceeding, he attempted to shift the responsibility for his neglect to his clients. [34]