Court Opinion

ID: 9795655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:34:53.505626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:58.008399
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, J.,
concurring specially.
1 1 I agree that discipline is necessary and that the discipline imposed is appropriate. However, this proceeding should have been brought under Rule 10, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.$.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A.1 As early as February 14, 2005, the Oklahoma Bar Association arguably had notice that the respondent had an alcohol problem, and certainly by March 1, 2005, when it was notified that the respondent entered Valley Hope Treatment Facility.
T2 This cause represents yet another in a string of recent bar cases in which the Oklahoma Bar Association has failed to invoke the provisions of Rule 10. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, 142 P.3d 410; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Rogers, 2006 OK 54, 142 P.3d 428; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Chapman, 2005 OK 16, 114 P.3d 414; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hummel, 2004 OK 30, 89 P.3d 1105. Instead, the Oklahoma Bar Association in this cause, as well as others, has chosen to ignore the proper procedures, then to join with the respondents in presenting recommendations of discipline which are less severe than the discipline recommended by the trial panel-apparently belatedly to utilize the spirit of the Rule.

. Rule 10, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.$.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A governs suspension for personal incapacity to practice law.