Opinion ID: 1130023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a 180-day suspension and payment of costs are an appropriate sanction for respondent's past professional misconduct

Text: The Oklahoma Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Bar disciplinary proceedings. [16] The court's review is conducted by de novo consideration of the prosecution brought before it. [17] Neither the parties' stipulation nor the PRT panel's findings of fact or conclusions of law is binding on this court. [18] The ultimate responsibility for administration of professional discipline is ours alone. While the Bar initially agreed with respondent that a public reprimand was an appropriate sanction, its position changed after the PRT hearing. The Bar now urges that we adopt the PRT's recommended discipline to be imposed (a) by a 120-day suspension, (b) by $3,200 in compensatory payment to Mays and (c) by assessing the costs of this proceeding. According to the Bar, because respondent is unwilling to perceive or admit the disrepute his conduct brought on the profession and the wrongfulness of his actions, he will likely repeat these intolerable derelictions. Leigh's failure to recognize any adverse consequence from his actions, the Bar urges, shows a willful disregard for his client's cause, for the courts and for the interest of the public.