Opinion ID: 2602282
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of his license to practice law for two years and one day together with payment of the costs of this proceeding

Text: ¶ 55 A license to practice law is not conferred for the benefit of the licensee, but for that of the public. The disciplinary process, including the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, is designed not to punish the delinquent lawyer, but to safeguard the interest of the public, the judiciary, and the legal profession. [75] Disciplinary sanctions not only serve to deter the offending lawyer from committing similar acts in the future, but also operate to put others on notice that departures from ethical norms will not be tolerated. [76] The disciplinary measure imposed upon an offending lawyer should be consistent with the discipline imposed upon other lawyers for similar acts of professional misconduct. [77] ¶ 56 The trial panel recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of two years. We disagree. Respondent's misconduct  toward clients as well as toward the Bar and this court  demonstrates a degree of unfitness to practice law that calls for something more than a simple suspension. Respondent's mishandling of the Cothran, Goff, and Sloan matters displays a pattern of incompetence in the fundamentals of legal practice together with an unconscionable lack of diligence. A lawyer is licensed to assist litigants and the courts in administering judicial process. When an attorney accepts employment, he or she accepts the responsibility to competently and expeditiously process a client's case. The wheels of justice should start turning when an attorney accepts employment. [78] For the clients whose grievances are before us today, respondent's misconduct caused the wheels of justice to turn slowly or not at all. ¶ 57 Respondent's chronic disregard of his obligation to respond to inquiries from the Bar demonstrates an indifference bordering on hostility toward the Bar and the court. Respondent has stipulated to nearly a dozen instances where he received letters from the Bar and failed to respond. This is itself grounds for discipline. [79] In his testimony before the trial panel, respondent variously described his chronic oppositional stance toward the Bar as a sickness, [80] as an aversion to authority, [81] as a type of denial, [82] and as simple neglect. [83] None of these explanations either excuses or mitigates respondent's culpability for his disregard of his obligations under RGDP Rule 5.2. ¶ 58 The public's interest in maintaining access to competent legal representation is best served by examination of a practitioner's performance over a span of time and an inquiry into the lawyer's professional history. If that history should reveal a pattern of misconduct, it will be a factor in tailoring the appropriate discipline. [84] In light of respondent's three prior encounters with the disciplinary system, in which he engaged in misconduct toward clients and toward the disciplinary system similar to that which brings him before us today, we are convinced that vindication of the legitimate interests served by Oklahoma's bar disciplinary regime calls in this case for the imposition of a suspension of two years and one day together with the payment of the costs of this proceeding. Anything less than that would permit respondent to gain his readmission without this court's order. Respondent's pattern of behavior is at odds with the standard of legal representation to which the public is entitled. He should now be required to meet the stricter standard that governs in this jurisdiction one's restoration of legal license that has stood suspended for at least two years and one day. [85]