Opinion ID: 2682792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure of Evidence by the State.

Text: a. the names and addresses of witnesses which the state intends to call at trial, together with their relevant, written or recorded statement, if any, or if none, significant summaries of any oral statement, b. law enforcement reports made in connection with the particular case, . . . 7 Rule 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A , see note 2, supra, requires prosecutors to make timely disclosures to the defense of all known evidence or information that may negate or mitigate the guilt of the accused. 8 Not only does Rule 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A , see note 3, supra, require disclosure, but the Oklahoma Discovery Code, 22 O.S. 2001 §2002, see note 6, supra, also requires it. 9 Transcript of PRT hearing, August 22, 2013, pp. 239-40. 10 Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 2, supra; Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 3, supra; Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 4, supra. 11 Although this Court does not bring disciplinary proceedings, we are the arbiter of discipline. The Preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A provides: in pertinent part: [5] A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process. Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A provides in pertinent part: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; . . . (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; . . . Rule 3.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A provides: A lawyer shall not: . . .(d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal. . . . Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A provides: With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if:
(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action. Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, see note 5, supra; Rule 1.5 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 1-A provides: This Court has adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by American Bar Association, acting through its House of Delegates on August 2, 1983, and adopted by the House of Delegates of the Oklahoma Bar Association on November 21, 1986, as subsequently modified by this Court, and as it may hereafter be modified by this Court, as the standard of professional conduct of all lawyers. Any lawyer violating these Rules of Professional Conduct shall be subject to discipline, as herein provided. 12 According to the Kay County Docket, Criminal Felony charges were filed against Loftis on November 21, 2013. This Court takes judicial notice of the Dockets of District and Appellate Courts. Collier v. Reese , 2009 OK 86, ¶8, fn. 7, 223 P.3d 966. See State ex rel . Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand Reporters v. Parris h, 2006 OK 91, ¶ 7 fn. 1, 152 P.3d 202; Mehdipour v. State ex rel . Department of Corrections , 2004 OK 19, ¶ 7 fn. 15, 90 P.3d 546; Myers v. Lashley , 2002 OK 14, ¶ 5, fn. 8, 44 P.3d 553. If convicted, Loftis faces suspension from the practice of law. Rule 7.1 Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 1-A provides: A lawyer who has been convicted or has tendered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to a deferred sentence plea agreement in any jurisdiction of a crime which demonstrates such lawyer's unfitness to practice law, regardless of whether the conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or from a verdict after trial, shall be subject to discipline as herein provided, regardless of the pendency of an appeal. 13 The PRT transcript of August 22, 2013 p. 210 provides: A. I haven't formally filed with the county but there's been, obviously, a statement in the Ponca City newspaper that I - my intention is to seek that office in 2014. 14 PRT hearing of August 22, 2013, p. 323. 15 PRT hearing of August 22, 2013, p. 335 16 Respondent's exhibit 2. 17 The transcript of the PRT proceeding dated August 22, 2013,m p. 259, the trial judge discusses a meeting with Layton several weeks or longer, after the trial in which he states: I absolutely hate that this occurred. I don't want to be here, I don't want her to be here. It's just very painful all the way around. But there was no acceptance of responsibility for it and no apology to the Court. On September 17, 2013, p. 539 of the PRT proceeding, Layton testified regarding subsequent conversations with the trial judge: I don't know if that's his exact words, but that was the theme of that summer, was he - he just - every time that I talked to him about it which was just a couple of times, he didn't use those exact words. He said things like, 'Throw yourself on your sword. Show remorse. Apologize to me for lying,' things like that. 18 Rule 3.8(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 3, supra; Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 2, supra. 19 Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 2, supra; Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 4, supra. 20 Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 3-A; Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Title 5 O.S. 2001 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 2, supra. 21 Rule 1.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Holden ,1995 OK 25, ¶1, 127 P.3d 591; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McMillian , 1989 OK 16, ¶5, 770 P.2d 892. 22 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Erickson , 2001 OK 66, ¶14, 29 P.3d 550; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Israel , 2001 OK 42, ¶13, 25 P.3d 909. 23 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Isreal , see note 14, supra; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolusky , 2001 OK 26, ¶7, 23 P.3d 268; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dershem , 2001 OK 7, ¶12, 21 P.3d 639. 24 Rule 6.12, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011, Ch. 1, App. 1-A provides: a) So far as practicable, the disciplinary proceedings and the reception of evidence shall be governed generally by the rules in civil proceedings, except as otherwise herein provided; the respondent shall be entitled to be represented by counsel. (b) On a charge of solicitation of professional employment through a lay person or agency, it shall not be necessary to prove that such lay person or agency received compensation. (c) To warrant a finding against the respondent in a contested case, the charge or charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and at least two of the members of the Trial Panel must concur in the findings. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wolfe , 1997 OK 47, ¶1, 937 P.2d 988; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Holden , see note 21, supra. 25 Rule 3.3, Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch.1, App. 3-A, see note 2, supra; Rule 8.4 Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 3-A, see note 4, supra. 26 Rule 1.3 Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, see note 5, supra. 27 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Patterson , 2001 OK 51, ¶29, 28 P.3d 551; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Eakin , 1995 OK 106, ¶0, 914 P.2d 644; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolton , see note 37, infra at ¶16. 28 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Doris , 1999 OK 94, ¶38, 991 P.2d 1015; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rozin , 1991 OK 132, ¶10, 824 P.2d 1127. 29 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Miskovsky , 1997 OK 55, ¶15, 938 P.2d 744. 30 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Southern , 2000 OK 88, ¶35, 15 P.3d 1; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor , 2000 OK 35, ¶33, 4 P.3d 1242. 31 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rennie , 1997 OK 108, ¶20, 945 P.2d 494; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Butler , 1992 OK 150, ¶9, 848 P.2d 540. 32 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Rennie , see note 23, supra; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilkins , 1995 OK 59, ¶12, 898 P.2d 147. 33 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Corrales , 2012 OK 64, 280 P.3d 968 [Respondent entered an Alford Plea on Count I, of misdemeanor Assault and Batter, based on allegations that he willfully and unlawfully committed an assault and battery upon his girlfriend. He was sentenced to a one year deferred sentence. He pled nolo contendre on Counts II and III, which were assault upon two different women. Respondent was sentenced to a one-year deferred sentence in each case. The sentences in all three misdemeanors were to run consecutively, resulting in a total of three years.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Murdock , 2010 OK 32, 236 P.3d 107 [Two counts of Sexual Battery charged in violation of 21 O.S. § 1123(D). One count of Sexual Battery was dismissed and attorney entered an Alford plea on the other count, which was reduced to the misdemeanor of Outraging Public Decency, in violation of 21 O.S. § 22. He was sentenced to one year probation, 50 hours of community service, victim restitution and counseling]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn , 2006 OK 50, 142 P.3d 420 [The attorney was charged with two felony counts of sexual battery arising from his contact with female security guards at a county courthouse. Eventually, he pled guilty to misdemeanor charges, and he received a one-year suspended sentence as to each count.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Groshon , 2003 OK 112, 82 P.3d 99 [The record established that the female client hired the attorney to handle her divorce action. Recognizing that she did not have the funds to pay him at that time for his legal services, the attorney agreed to allow her to make payments whenever she was able to do so. However, the attorney did not bill her for services. The lawyer admitted to making numerous suggestive comments to the client and engaging in inappropriate touching of a sexual nature during the course of his representation. At least one of the episodes that took place in the lawyer's office was tape recorded by the client. The client indicated she attempted to find new counsel but was unable to afford their fees.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Foster , 2000 OK 4, 995 P.2d 1138 [Attorney entered a plea of nolo contendre to the charge of assault with the intent to commit a felony and the imposition of a five-year deferred sentence. The attorney unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously touched A.M., a minor child under the age of eighteen (18) years, with the intent to commit the felony of procuring obscene and indecent photographs in violation of 21 O.S. Supp.1996 § 1021.2.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Garrett , 2005 OK 91, 127 P.3d 600 [The attorney sexually battered two young women by grabbing their breasts and their buttocks while he was intoxicated. The attorney was arrested for felonious sexual battery while intoxicated and pled guilty to misdemeanor battery.]; State ex. rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Copeland , 1994 OK 21, 870 P.2d 776 [Respondent purposefully touched client's breast and related that sexual favors had been performed for him by another female client.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Sopher , 1993 OK 55, 852 P.2d 707[While in the attorney's office, the attorney touched and looked down the client's blouse. The attorney also did the same thing to the client's mother.]. 34 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Kelley , 2002 OK 10, 48 P.3d 777 [The first count of the complaint involved the attorney's representation of a client in a workers' compensation case. The complaint asserted that the attorney was not diligent in her representation, the attorney did not keep the client reasonably informed about the matter and failed to expedite the litigation consistent with the client's interests. The second count against the attorney regarded the OBA's request for the attorney to respond to a grievance filed against her. After numerous requests, the attorney failed to respond, and a subpoena was issued for her deposition and production of documents.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Minter , 1998 OK 59, 961 P.2d 208 [Respondent was hired to represent client's son in a first-degree murder case. The son was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The Respondent filed a notice of intent to appeal with the District Court in Coal County. However, he failed to also file a designation of record in the district court as required by law. Because the Respondent failed to file the proper papers to perfect the appeal, OIDS did not accept the case. The client attempted to contact the Respondent numerous times both by telephone and letter regarding the appeal. Respondent did not return any of her calls or respond to any of her letters. After a grievance was filed, the Complainant's office sent three letters to Respondent over the course of several weeks. Respondent did not respond to any of the letters.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Prather , 1996 OK 87, 925 P.2d 28 [The attorney failed to inform his client that her case had been dismissed on two separate occasions. Also, he did not inform her that he had refiled her case. The client unsuccessfully telephoned the attorney on several occasions to request status reports and information pertaining to her case. The attorney did not return most of her phone calls and he did not inform the client of his change of address after any of his four office moves during the time he represented her.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McManus , 1993 OK 66, 852 P.2d 727 [The parties agreed that the attorney commingled personal funds with the trust account for client's funds. The attorney failed to communicate with a client, who filed a grievance against him, and to answer the Bar's letter, requesting that he respond to the grievance. The attorney's failed to timely pursue a trial for a personal injury case. The attorney's failed to respond to the Bar's letters regarding the grievance filed by the referring attorney of the injury case.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Angel , 1993 OK 2, 848 P.2d 549 [The attorney was retained by the clients in a federal action alleging that they were fraudulently induced to accept a change in their commission arrangement. The attorney engaged in substantial discovery. A motion for summary judgment was filed by defendants in the action and gave the clients 35 days to respond. An extension was granted until. The attorney was unable to formulate a reasonable objection to the motion and requested a second extension. The attorney failed to file a response by that second extension date, and the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Busch , 1992 OK 68, 832 P.2d 845 [Respondent failed to appear and a client's case was subsequently dismissed. Respondent was retained to prosecute a suit arising from an automobile collision and he filed the suit but never caused a summons to be issued. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice because no summons had been issued. The respondent failed to notify the client that his case had been dismissed. The stipulations also state that the respondent claims that he was never notified of the dismissal and returned the case-file to his client prior to the dismissal. The respondent had been previously privately reprimanded the Professional Responsibility Commission for violating the mandatory response provisions of Rule 5.2 and the Bar included this Count to enhance discipline.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly , 1992 OK 164, 848 P.2d 543 [The attorney failed to initiate a collection action on his clients' behalf, despite his representations to the clients that he had in fact done so.]; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Braswell , 1983 OK 63, 663 P.2d 1228 [The attorney failed to file a tort claim on behalf of a client within the limitations period. It was immaterial whether the attorney had assigned the matter to a law clerk or had simply misplaced the case. His procedures for monitoring unfiled cases were clearly inadequate.]. 35 State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Townsend , 2012 OK 44, 277 P.3d 1269 [The attorney missed court dates resulting in rulings adverse to clients, failed to communicate, lacked diligence, and did not return files to clients in a timely manner.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Martin , 2010 OK 66, 240 P.3d 690 [Respondent's utter failure to supervise any of a non-attorney's work activities enabling him to engage in the unauthorized practice of law by performing legal services without proper supervision by a licensed lawyer. Also, respondent was vicariously liable in disciplinary responsibility for all the misdeeds of his unlicensed employee which went unnoticed until the victim complained.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Funk , 2005 OK 26, 114 P.3d 427 [Respondent allowed the client trust account to fall below the amount held on behalf of the client. The court found that the attorney had no intent to commingle funds but he had mismanaged the client account.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Taylor , 2003 OK 56, 71 P.3d 18 [Respondent knowing one or more of his client's medical providers were claiming interest in the settlement proceeds he received, and not knowing Texas law as to exactly what their interest was or exactly how to distribute the proceeds appropriately under the law, the attorney disbursed much of the proceeds to himself. He then embarked on a course of potentially indefinite delay with regard to the remaining proceeds, even though he knew either one or more of the providers or his client was entitled to the bulk of the funds he retained.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Erickson , 2001 OK 66, 29 P.3d 550 [Attorney violated rule providing that it is professional misconduct to state or imply ability to improperly influence government agency or official and rule providing that it is professional misconduct to violate or attempt to violate professional conduct rules, to knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or to do so through acts of another.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Simank , 2001 OK 13, 19 P.3d 860 [The undisputed facts were that respondent persistently failed to respond to 10 letters from the bar requesting information and also failed to sign for an additional 5 certified letter that were mailed to his official bar address.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Brewer , 1999 OK 101, 998 P.2d 605 [Respondent failed to keep his clients reasonably informed of the status of their cases, failed to respond to their reasonable requests for information, and failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation. The court also found the evidence supported a finding that respondent failed to answer complainant's request for information regarding the grievances filed against him.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bills , 1997 OK 151, 951 P.2d 1090 [The attorney was representing a wife in a divorce proceeding and accepted a retainer against which he could charge his fees as they were earned. The client discharged the attorney and requested the return of the unused portion of the retainer and an accounting. The attorney had not kept an account of the hours he had spent on the file and had to recreate it from memory.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Blackburn , 1991 OK 35, 812 P.2d 379 [Two counts were filed against respond. 1) Because of his substance-abuse problems, the attorney neglected to file a brief on behalf of his client in a criminal appeal. 2) A wife contacted Blackburn by telephone and recruited him to handle her divorce. In this conversation, she revealed a number of factors about her finances, requests for alimony and child support, and custody considerations. Later Blackburn wrote to wife stating that he had been contacted by her husband and was filing suit for divorce on the husband's behalf. Blackburn had evidently been a family friend of the husband for a number of years.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Borders , 1989 OK 101, 777 P.2d 929 [Attorney failed to communicate with criminal defendant's mother and with public defender's office and failed to preserve property of client and to act diligently to represent client's interests.]; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McNaughton , 1986 OK 25, 719 P.2d 1279 [The attorney, who had accepted representation of an adult defendant charged with the felony offense of lewd molestation of a minor, also served as counsel in prosecution related matters, for the alleged underage victim of the crime, her minor sister, and their adult mother. The attorney argued that he had made a full disclosure to the mother.]. 36 State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Smith , 1980 OK 126, ¶21, 615 P.2d 1014; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Lowe , 1982 OK 20, ¶19, 640 P.2d 1361. 37 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolton , 1995 OK 98, ¶12, 904 P.2d 597; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Association v. Donnelly , 1992 OK 164, ¶11, 848 P.2d 543; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Hall , 1977 OK 117, ¶12, 567 P.2d 975. 38 State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Patterson , 2001 OK 51, ¶29, 28 P.3d 551; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Eakin , 1995 OK 106, ¶0, 917 P.2d 644; State ex rel . Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolton , see note 37 at ¶16, supra. WATT, J., dissenting : ¶1 The majority attempts to make Layton's lack of candor with the court everyone's fault except that of the respondent, the one and only individual who had control over what came out of her mouth. Furthermore, it imposes upon the trial court an unwarranted measure of blame. ¶2 At all times concerning the charges of misconduct respondent, an assistant district attorney, was not only an officer of the court but was the representative and the face of the Sovereign State of Oklahoma in prosecuting this case. According to Layton's profile, she served in this position for some eight (8) years. It is difficult to believe that, as an experienced prosecuting attorney, the chaos in the courthouse the day she encountered her witness was much different than any contested criminal proceeding in which she had participated. It is common knowledge that our County Courthouses are, for the most part, completely inadequate and provide little opportunity for quiet conversations with anyone. Most often, attorneys are forced to conduct such interviews in hushed tones and in crowded hallways filled with other parties and their attorneys attempting to do the same. ¶3 When directly asked by the trial judge if she had spoken to her witness, Antral Miller, prior to trial, she lied to the court in answering his question - NO.! ¶4 In response to the charges brought against the respondent, she wants this court to believe that she was confused by the trial court's question; that she did not intend to mislead the court; and that her answer produced no harm and, therefore, no foul. ¶5 The record reflects that respondent had at least two other opportunities to proffer the correct and truthful answer (that she had, in fact, talked to Mr. Miller). Once during Mr. Miller's testimony at trial, and also during a meeting in the judge's chambers with and in the presence of the judge and opposing counsel. Yet, respondent continued to perpetuate her original lie to the court. ¶6 I agree that there was no excuse for some of the actions of the opposing counsel in this cause. Nevertheless, I cannot condone the majority's shifting any modicum of the blame for error onto the trial court bench. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear that in serious criminal cases, the better practice is to transcribe all proceedings, both those in chambers and at the bench. Nevertheless, the failure to do so is not considered fundamental error by the Criminal Court especially where, as here, the criminal defendants were acquitted. 1 Furthermore, in cases on review before that honorable tribunal, it is expected that defense counsel will protect the rights of their clients by objecting to off-the-record proceedings. 2 The objection was not proffered in this cause, leaving the trial court without the opportunity to rule on the same. ¶7 As a former prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer, and trial court judge, it has been and is my continuing opinion that the one unforgivable sin of any attorney/officer of the court is - TO LIE TO THE COURT.. ¶8 The majority acknowledges that '[t]he record is clear that Layton was not clearly candid to the trial court that she spoke with Miller before his testimony, or what was discussed.' Nevertheless, it adopts the respondent's sugarcoated version of this transgression and the majority opinion signs off by dismissing the charges against her. Accordingly, I would impose costs against this respondent and further impose a lengthy period of suspension based upon the facts before us and for that reason I respectfully dissent.