Opinion ID: 1276117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: count iv the fritze matter

Text: ¶ 36 The Trial Panel concluded that Respondent violated ORPC Rule 8.4(d) because his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, Rule 3.4 because he obstructed another party's access to evidence and ORPC Rule 4.4 because he intended to delay Fritze's client. The record simply does not support the Trial Panel's conclusion on this count. Ms. Fritze conceded on cross examination that the only thing she was complaining about Respondent having done wrong was that he didn't return [her] calls and communicate with [her]. ¶ 37 In a disciplinary proceeding it is important to remember that a lawyer's primary obligation is to represent his client. Offending one's opponent is not grounds for discipline unless it amounts to obstruction of justice or violates some other well defined rule. Ms. Fritze had no legally protected right to rely on Respondent to retrieve the estate's property from his client. Ms. Fritze admitted that she had not filed an application in the probate court for an order to deliver the property. Respondent's failure to communicate with Ms. Fritze did not prejudice the rights of his client. Thus, it was not professional misconduct. ¶ 38 Rule 8.4(d) may not be used to establish professional misconduct unless the complained acts were the sort that were previously disapproved by case law, statute, court rules or the `lore of the profession.' State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Bourne, 1994 OK 78 ¶ 6, 880 P.2d 360, 361. Here it appears that the conduct complained of consisted of no more than Respondent's failure to return his opponent's phone calls, and that is not professional misconduct. Nevertheless, for the reasons indicated in our discussion under Count I, Respondent's failure to respond the OBA's grievance was a violation of Rule 5.1, which is professional misconduct and calls for discipline.