Court Opinion

ID: 9760098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:25.536209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.296936
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, J,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
{1 The complaint filed by the Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association) on September 4, 2009, states that the second grievance was originally filed with the Tulsa County Bar Association (TCBA) on January 12, 2009. Apparently, when the lawyer did not respond to the TCBA inquiries, the TCBA forwarded the matter to the Bar Association for a formal investigation on April 8, 2009.
T 2 The record reflects that the TCBA sent a letter to the lawyer on January 19, 2009, which provides in pertinent part:
Dear Mr. Whitebook:
Enclosed is a copy of a grievance alleging professional misconduct filed with the Tulsa County Bar Association Professional Responsibility Committee. Please submit a written response within twenty (20) days of the date hereof. Your failure to respond timely may result in the referral of this grievance to the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association for further action.
As you may know, the Supreme Court delegated to the Oklahoma Bar Association General Counsel the duty to investigate grievance filed against Oklahoma lawyers. The Tulsa Professional - Responsibility Committee has been asked by the OBA General Counsel to assist with the investigation of grievances filed with the TCBA against lawyers in Northeastern Oklahoma. Our role is investigative only. Our more than 60 volunteer members investigate and report their recommendations to the Committee as a whole. The Committee can take one of two actions: dismiss the grievance, in which case no further action will be taken; or refer the matter to the OBA General Counsel for further action, investigations, and possible disciplinary action by the OK Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
T3 Additionally, the TCBA website (www. tulsabar.com) contains a link which provides: "Problems with a Lawyer?" The website also states:
The Tulsa County Bar Association cannot give you any advice regarding your attorney's conduct. However, the TCBA Professional Responsibility Committee will investigate complaints involving ethical concerns. All complaints must be submitted in writing and signed.... If the attorney is in Tulsa County you may *524download the Grievance form using the link to the right under Related Links. If the attorney is NOT located in Tulsa County you must call the State Bar of Oklahoma at the numbers listed below or visit their website to obtain the correct form. (Emphasis in original).
T4 The original jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Supreme Court extends to a general superintending control over all inferior courts and all agencies, commissions and boards created by law.1 It is the Supreme Court's nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate discipline of the practitioners of law and the duty is vested solely in this department of government.2 The Supreme Court, to aid in its duty of administering justice in Oklahoma created the Oklahoma Bar Association,3 as an official arm of the Court.4 Attorney's licensed in Oklahoma are a part of the judicial system and are officers in its courts.5
15 The Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in all matters involving administration of persons to practice law in this State and to discipline for cause, any and all persons licensed to practice law in Oklahoma.6 As part of this jurisdiction the *525Court, through the Board of Governors and the Professional Responsibility Commission, employs the General Counsel of the Bar Association7 whose duties of office include investigation of all matters involving possible misconduct8 The Court approves over a million dollar budget funded from the private dues paid by the Oklahoma Bar Association members to enable the General Counsel to carry out those duties. Extensive procedures for investigation of grievances against lawyers as well as for investigating misconduct by the General Counsel, when alleged to oecur, have been established to ensure that justice is administered equally and fairly to all lawyers in Oklahoma in a centralized location are found in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.9
T6 Rule 3.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 8.2 provides in pertinent part:
The General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association shall have the following powers and duties in the area of discipline under these Rules: ...
*526(i) To use the services of other members of the Oklahoma Bar Association (including, but not limited to, any state or county Bar grievance committee) in carrying out the duties imposed upon the General Counsel concerning the general supervision of all disciplinary matters affecting lawyers.
We explained in State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Downes, 2005 OK 33, ¶ 26, 121 P.3d 1058, that, Rule 3.2) does not allow a bar member or county Bar Association to determine that a formal complaint should not be initiated or to impose discipline, even by private reprimand.10 We also said that after a bar member or state or county bar committee investigates a grievance, it should submit its report as to every grievance or complaint, together with supporting documentation, to the General Counsel for presentation to the Commission.11 According to the TCBA letter, it does not interpret either Downes or Rule 3.2 the way we do. I would be most interested in determining how many cases have been dismissed by the Tulsa County Bar Disciplinary Committee since Downes was promulgated in 2005.
T7 I have grave concerns regarding this rule and it potential misuse. I thought those concerns might have been diminished when we decided Downes, but today I would revisit the issue and strike Rule 38.2(i) altogether as unconstitutional since its promulgation. Allowing a County Bar Association to screen grievances and to decide whether such grievances may be dismissed or forwarded to the General Counsel should not be authorized. Such an interpretation fails to provide evenhanded due and equal process to Oklahoma lawyers.12 For 76 counties in Oklahoma we have a neutral investigator; for Tulsa County, investigations are being conducted by a lawyer's peers and colleagues. Rule 3.2 provides special treatment for Tulsa County law*527yers. This treatment may inure to their benefit or to their detriment-either way it is disparate.
T8 The respondent lawyer in this cause does not complain of the grievance being forwarded by the TCBA.13 Nevertheless, one of the main factors for determining the respondent's discipline is the fact that he was non-responsive to the OBA investigations. Most lawyers in Oklahoma would probably be surprised to discover that their County Bar Association may be investigating and questioning them. Had he been contacted initially by the General Counsel's office of the Bar Association, his responsiveness may have been very different.
19 The discipline recommended by the Professional Responsibility Commission, the Bar Association and this Court may or may not be comparable to similar situated previous disciplined lawyers. For instance, in the deposition of the respondent lawyer taken on October 2, 2008, the assistant general counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association appeared to be very sympathetic to his depression, Crohn's disease, and possible onset of prostate cancer. He was asked to elaborate on his health issues, and the Bar Association's lawyer even offered to provide assistance and/or help regarding these health issues.14 Perhaps this cause should have been brought under Rule 10.15
10 I do concur that discipline should be imposed. However, I cannot sanction the continuation of allowing a County Bar Association to sereen and dismiss grievances on behalf of the General Counsel without referring them to the General Counsel. The TCBA letter suggests that it has continued this practice in contradiction to State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Downes, 2005 OK 33, 126, 121 P.3d 1058. Again, I would like to know how many causes have been dismissed, if any, since 2005. I would strike Rule 3.2(i) of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, and prohibit the General Counsel from delegating the duty to investigate complaints to *528anyone outside of the office of the General Counsel.

. The Oklahoma Constitution art. 7, § 4 provides in pertinent part:
. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be co-extensive with the State and shall extend to all cases at law and in equity; except that the Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases until otherwise provided by statute and in the event there is any conflict as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to a general superintendent control over all inferior courts and all Agencies, Commissions and Boards created by law. . . .

. Title 5 0.$.2001 § 13; In re Reinstatement of Pacenza, 2009 OK 9, ¶ 7, 204 P.3d 58, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Farrant, 1994 OK 13, ¶ 13, 867 P.2d 1279.

. The Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1, Preamble provides:
In the public interest, for the advancement of the administration of justice according to law, and to aid the courts in carrying on the administration of justice; to foster and maintain on the part of those engaged in the practice of law high ideals of integrity, learning, competence and public service, and high standards of conduct; to provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence, and law reform; to carry on a continuing program of legal research in technical fields of substantive law, practice and procedure, and to make reports and recommendations thereto; to prevent the unauthorized practice of law; to encourage the formation and activities of local bar associations; to encourage practices that will advance and improve the honor and dignity of the legal profession; and to the end that the responsibility of the legal profession and the individual members thereof, may be more effectively and efficiently discharged in the public interest, and acting within the police powers vested in it by the Constitution of this State (Okla. Const.(1907), Art. IV, Section 1, Art. VII (1967) Section 1, 4; In re Integration of State Bar of Oklahoma, 185 Okla. 505, 95 P.2d 113 (1939); In re Bledsoe, 186 Okla. 264, 97 P.2d 556 (1939); Ford v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections of Oklahoma County, 431 P.2d 423 (Okla.1967)). The Supreme Court of Oklahoma does hereby create and continue an association of the members of the Bar of the State of Oklahoma to be known as the Oklahoma Bar Association, and promulgates the following rules for the government of the Association and the individual members thereof.

. Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n, 1981 OK 12, ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 1049. The Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 0.S.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. 1, § 1 provides:
The Oklahoma Bar Association is an official arm of this Court, when acting for and on behalf of this Court in the performance of its governmental powers and functions.

. The Rules Creating and Controlling the Oklahoma Bar Association, 5 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1, Art. 1, § 2 provides:
Attorneys admitted to practice law in Oklahoma are a part of the judicial system of Oklahoma and officers of its courts.

. Smith v. Brock, 1975 OK 27, ¶ 15, 532 P.2d 843; The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. I-A, Rule 1.1, Declaration of Jurisdiction provides:
This Court declares that it possesses original and exclusive jurisdiction in all matters involving admission of persons to practice law in this State, and to discipline for cause, any and all persons licensed to practice law in Oklahoma, hereinafter referred to as lawyers, and any other persons, corporations, partnerships, or any other entities (hereinafter collectively referred to as "persons) engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. This Court further declares that a member of the Bar of this State may not take unto himself any office or position or shroud himself in any official title *525which will place him beyond the power of this Court to keep its roster of attorneys clean. In the exercise of the foregoing jurisdiction, this Court adopts and promulgates the following rules which shall govern disciplinary and unauthorized practice of law proceedings.

. The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 3.1 provides: ur
The Board of Governors with the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission shall employ and discharge the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

. The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. I-A, Rule 3.2 provides:
The General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association shall have the following powers and duties in the area of discipline under these Rules:
(a) With the approval of the Commission, to employ and supervise staff needed for the performance of the duties of the office;
(b) To investigate all matters involving possible misconduct or alleged incapacity of any lawyer, or the unauthorized practice of law, called to the General Counsel's attention by complaint or otherwise;
(c) To report to the Commission the results of investigations made by or at the direction of the General Counsel, and to make recommendations to the Commission concerning the institution of formal complaints for alleged misconduct or personal incapacity of lawyers;
(d) To prosecute all proceedings under these Rules;
(e) To appear at hearings conducted with respect to petitions for reinstatement of suspended or disbarred lawyers or lawyers suspended for incapacity to practice law, to cross-examine witnesses testifying in support of such petitions, and to marshal and present available evidence, if any, in opposition thereto;
(£) To file with the Supreme Court certificates of conviction of lawyers for crimes;
(g) To maintain permanent records of all active and inactive discipline and disability matters, subject to the expungement requirements of Rule 3.2(L), as follows:
(1) All inactive disciplinary matters where a formal complaint has been filed with the Supreme Court, shall be maintained indefinitely;
(2) All inactive disciplinary matters where a member has resigned pending disciplinary proceedings or pending investigation which might result in disciplinary proceedings, shall be maintained indefinitely;
(3) All inactive disciplinary matters where a private reprimand has been issued by the Professional Responsibility Commission shall be maintained indefinitely;
(4) All inactive disciplinary matters where the General Counsel's Office has investigated a grievance and reported the grievance to the Professional Responsibility Commission or its predecessor for action, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years from the date the grievance is made inactive;
(5) All inactive disciplinary matters where the General Counsel has disposed of the grievance by informal procedures, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years from the date the grievance is made inactive.
(b) To expunge after three (3) years all records of the Commission relating to grievances terminated by dismissal, except that the General Counsel shall retain a docket showing the names of each respondent and complainant, the final disposition, and the date all records relating to the matier were expunged, except that the General Counsel may, prior to the expiration of the three (3) years, apply to the Commission for an additional three (3) years which application shall be granted upon a showing of good cause and with notice to respondent; expunge other grievances as directed by the Commission pursuant to Rule 5.3(b).
(i) To use the services of other members of the Oklahoma Bar Association (including, but not limited to, any state or county Bar grievance committee) in carrying out the duties imposed upon the General Counsel concerning the general supervision of all disciplinary matters affecting lawyers.

. The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 ©.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 1.1 et seq.

. In State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Downes, 2005 OK 33, ¶ 26, 121 P.3d 1058, one of the grievances filed against Downes was filed by a client initially with the TCBA and then with the OBA. On March 11, 2004, the TCBA wrote to the OBA, forwarding the complaint which had been filed with them. The letter provides in pertinent part:
. I would advise you that on March 7, 2003, Ms. Hanger filed the referenced complaint with the Tulsa County Bar Association Professional Responsibility Commitiee. While it is not verbatim the identical complaint, it appears to be contained the same principal components of the complaint filed with the Tulsa County Bar Association.
This complaint was ... reporied on at the December 2003 regular meeting of the Professional Responsibility Committee and was dismissed by vote of the committee.
A copy of the letter informing Ms. Hanger of the declination to take further action is attached hereto. The purpose of this letter is simply to advise you of these facts. As always, our file concerning this matter is available to the Oklahoma Bar Association. I find it a bit disconcerting that a complainant would file a second complaint with the OBA after her first substantially similar claim was determined by the committee not to be forwarded to the Oklahoma Bar Association, without bringing that fact to the Bar Association's attention. (Emphasis in original.) ...
The December 10, 2003, letter which was sent to the complainant from the TCBA provides in pertinent part:
... Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. - The Professional Responsibility Committee has investigated your complaint against the referenced attorney.
This Committee only addressed grievances alleging atiorney misconduct which violates the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Although conduct of an attorney may seem otherwise inappropriate, it may not necessarily constitute a violation of the Rules. The conduct in this case was deemed not to violate those Rules and the Committee has dismissed your Complaint.
Accordingly, we decline to take any further action with respect to your Complaint....

. Also in State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Downes, see note 10, supra, the Bar Association wrote to the attorney a letter on March 25, 2004, which provides in pertinent part:
... Our office is in receipt of your 'response' to this grievance, consisting of a cover letter and a copy of your reply to the Tulsa County Bar Association. While our office was aware of a grievance from Ms. Hanger against you being made to the Tulsa County Bar Association, we have no way of knowing if these matters are 'in substantially similar form and content,' as no copy of the original grievance against you has ever been furnished to this office. ...

. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amend., § 1, U.S. Const., commands that no State shall deny due process of the law or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Oklahoma's due process clause, Art. 2, § 7, Okl. Const., has a definitional sweep that is coextensive with its federal counterpart. Black v. Ball Janitorial Serv., Inc., 1986 OK 75, ¶ 8, fn. 9, 730 P.2d 510, 513.

. In another cause, State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Beasley, 2006 OK 49, 142 P.3d 410. The TCBA received several complaint forms against Beasley. The record contained letters by the TCBA investigators which concluded several violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct had occurred. Subsequently, the TCBA Professional Responsibility Committee voted to refer the complaints to the OBA. The TCBA sent Beasley a letter similar to the letter sent in State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Downes, see note 10, supra, in which they also informed Beasley that they had the authority to either vote to dismiss the action or to refer the matter to the OBA.

. The deposition of October 2, 2008, provides in pertinent part at p. 21:
Q: Speaking for myself, if I had trouble getting up out of bed after a prolonged period of time, I would have some issues with depression. That's my question to you. And the reason I'm asking that is not to invade your private life or anything like that, but we have to know these things, (a), to see if there is something present, there are some things that we can offer to assist you, to help you. Number two is that if there are those things, that might be a mitigating factor, so that's the reason I ask the question ...
Q. Okay. Would you be willing, after we're done here, if we refer you to someone that could probably help you define that, (a), and then that could help you? Would you be willing to do that?
A. Yes, sin....

. The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O0.S.2010 Ch. 1, App. I-A, Rule 10.2 provides:
Whenever it has been determined that a lawyer is personally incapable of practicing law, his license to practice shall be suspended until reinstated by order of this Court.
The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.$.2010 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 10.1 provides:
The term "personally incapable of practicing law" shall include:
(a) Suffering from mental or physical illness of such character as to render the person afflicted incapable of managing himself, his affairs or the affairs of others with the integrity and competence requisite for the proper practice of law;
(b) Active misfeasance or repeated neglect of duty in respect to the affairs of a client, whether in matters pending before a tribunal or in other matters constituting the practice of law; or
(c) Habitual use of alcoholic beverages or liquids of any alcoholic content, hallucinogens, sedatives, drugs, or other mentally or physically disabling substances of any character whatsoever to any extent which impairs or tends to impair ability to conduct efficiently and properly the affairs undertaken for a client in the practice of law.