Court Opinion

ID: 9566707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:42:11.867917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:08.610776
License: Public Domain

OPALA, Justice,
concurring in result.
I cannot fully accede to the court’s pronouncement nor to its de novo findings of fact. In my view of the record the gravamen of the respondent’s professional dereliction for which disciplinary sanctions were sought and are imposed today lies not so much in his false insinuations that certain public officials might be approached to accept a payoff or bribe in the form of campaign contributions — a violation of DR9-101(C), Code of Professional Responsibility, 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 31 — but more so in inducing his client’s hope and belief that the client was paying the respondent not only for services rendered or to be rendered as a lawyer in the case, but also for respondent’s represented capability to obtain favors from key officials which would prevent the criminal charge, then under investigation, from being filed or, at least, would assure lenient treatment for the client’s offense of lewd molestation, if prosecution were to follow.
In short, my view is that the respondent’s transgressions consist mainly of accepting an illegal fee, in breach of DR2-106(A) of the Code,2 upon an oblique, if not direct, promise that he might use improper means to bring about a favorable end to the pending criminal investigation or to the charge, if one were filed.
Because respondent’s misconduct as a licensed practitioner3 seriously undermines public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession,4 it warrants the four-year suspension recommended to this court as a fit sanction to be imposed.

. DR9-101(C), Code of Professional Responsibility, 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 3, provides: "A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.” [Emphasis mine.]

. DR2-106(A), Code of Professional Responsibility, 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 3, provides: "A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee." [Emphasis mine.] See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Fore, Okl., 562 P.2d 511, 514-515 [1977].

. The acts complained of in this disciplinary proceeding, although known to law enforcement and to the prosecutorial service, did not result in respondent's criminal prosecution.

. State, ex rel., Okl. Bar Ass’n v. Raskin, Okl., 642 P.2d 262, 268 [1982].