Court Opinion

ID: 9822388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:02:21.610024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:05.191841
License: Public Domain

COMBS, V.C.J.,
with whom TAYLOR, J., joins, dissenting:
1 1 I respectfully dissent to the majority's decision to publicly censure the Respondent, James Edward Oliver, The decision merely to publicly censure the Respondent results from a mischaracterization of his problematic conduct while practicing before the United States Bankruptey Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Bankruptey Court). Respondent's actions resulted, after several temporary suspensions, in his permanent suspension by the Bankruptey Court in June of 2015.
T2 The majority determines Respondent's problem to be one of computer illiteracy and declares Respondent's inability to adapt to electronic forms and filing to be the reason for the Bankruptcy Court's progressive disciplinary orders, noting those issues have little bearing on his ability to practice law in the State of Oklahoma generally. A detailed examination of the record in this cause reveals that Respondent's issues go far beyond technological illiteracy.
183 The series of disciplinary orders concerning Respondent reveal an attorney not only unable to meet the minimum requirements of modern bankruptcy practice but also one unwilling to make any substantial effort to do so. Respondent effectively ignored the local rules and guidelines, made no effort to correct his work despite being given personalized help by the Bankruptey Court's staff on more than one occasion, and insulted court staff when. the Bankruptey Court refused to bend the rules for him.
14 After giving Respondent multiple chances, the Bankruptey Court ordered Respondent to submit draft templates of nine frequently filed documents, and specifically stated that "in doing so, [Respondent] may not seek or obtain assistance from this Court's law clerk, the staff of the Court Clerk's office or any other person." In a separate portion of the same order, the Bankruptey Court required Respondent to file a document certified under oath by a bankruptey attorney conforming that the attorney would assist Respondent in his practice.
15 Respondent violated the terms of this order,. Either he did so deliberately or because he did not read it carefully. Respondent hired another bankruptcy attorney to *1078review and make corrections to the draft templates he was ordered to complete on his own. He did not disclose to this attorney his disciplinary issues with the Bankruptcy Court or the underlying reason he needed the draft forms,. The attorney hired by Respondent only learned all the details when he became concerned and contacted the Bank-ruptey Court himself.
T6 Respondent: 1) in both form and substance demonstrated incompetency to practice law before the Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of Oklahoma; 2) failed to make honest attempts to improve despite personalized help from court staff, directing insults instead; 3) violated a direct order of the Bankruptey Court; 4) displayed a profound lack of candor; 5) failed to notify this Court of his suspensions; and 6) failed to timely notify his clients of his suspensions, resulting in the administrative closure of several of their cases.
17 To quote the Bankruptey Court's own Order of Permanent Suspension: "[Respondent] has blamed his problems on software deficiencies and computer glitches, even when poor reading comprehension, impatience and/or lack of attention to detail were the real culprits." As part of the disciplinary process, it is our duty to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view to safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Friesen, 2015 OK 34, ¶ 18, 350 P.3d 1269; State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Layton, 2014 OK 21, ¶ 34, 324 P.3d 1244, I am unconvinced Respondent will represent future clients with any more competence than he displayed in his bankruptey practice, and find his lack of candor and blatant disregard for the Bankruptey Court's orders disturbing. I would suspend Respondent for two years and one day.