Court Opinion

ID: 9795269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:24:04.452817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:28:38.685639
License: Public Domain

*1113KAUGER, J.,
dissenting.
¶ 1 The complainant, Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar Association), charged the respondent with a series of counts of misconduct — the majority of which have a central theme of neglect and a failure to respond to inquiries both of clients and of the Bar Association in the disciplinary process. I agree that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law. Nevertheless, because a careful review of the evidence reveals that the attorney’s misconduct arose as a result of a severe depressive condition, I would treat the matter as a Rule 10 proceeding,1 suspending the attorney from the practice of law until further order of the Court and imposing costs of the proceeding.2 Therefore, I dissent.
¶ 2 NEGLECT BEING THE GRAVAMEN OF EACH OF THE FIVE DISCIPLINARY COUNTS COUPLED WITH EVIDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY’S INCAPACITY WARRANTS TREATMENT OF THE CAUSE AS A RULE 10 PROCEEDING, SUSPENSION UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, AND THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS.
¶ 3 In disciplinary matters, this Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction.3 We are not bound by agreed findings, conclusions of law or recommendations for discipline.4 Rather, the ultimate responsibility for imposition of professional discipline is ours alone. The Court’s review is de novo in considering the record presented as well as the recommendations for discipline.5 Before we may impose discipline upon an attorney, the charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence.6
¶ 4 Although there is evidence of misrepresentation and the failure to timely return client funds, the gravamen of each of the five disciplinary counts involves the attorney’s neglect and her failure to respond to clients’ and to the Bar Association’s inquiries. The Bar Association recognized at the hearing before the trial panel that the attorney’s problems were linked to her bouts with depression.7 The attorney testified that she had been suffering from depression in excess of ten years before the subject complaints were filed and that, because of her condition, she had begun to wind down her legal prac*1114tice.8 The attorney finally sought professional assistance in September of 2001, realizing that she was suffering from the most severe and lengthy episode of depression she had experienced.9 Although the attorney did not impose her depression as a defense to the disciplinary action, she recognized that it had a major impact on her actions.10 At times, the attorney was so overwhelmed that she felt as though it was impossible for her to act.11 The licensed psychologist treating the attorney specifically felt that the attorney’s handling of her practice and of her response to the Bar Association was directly related to a major depression-recurrent condition.12
¶ 5 In Rule 10 proceedings, the main objective is to minimize the potential risk to the public from a practitioner’s incapacity. The focus is not exclusively on the past but rather on the attorney’s present condition and its future consequences.13 Subsections (a) and *1115(b) of Rule 10.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings,14 define “personally incapable of practicing law” as including mental or physical illness, or a pattern of repeated neglect of legal matters. If an attorney is determined to be personally incapable of practicing law, the attorney shall be formally suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court.15
¶ 6 It is undisputed by the majority, by the Bar Association, and by the trial panel that the attorney’s performance was affected by her depressive condition.16 If the facts here do not warrant the attorney’s suspension on grounds that she is personally incapable of practicing law, then I cannot fathom a situation when a person should be suspended from the practice of law as mentally or physically incapable of its practice. Neglect being the gravamen of each of the five disciplinary counts coupled with evidence of the attorney’s incapacity warrants treatment of the cause as a Rule 10 proceeding, suspension until further order of the Court17 and the imposition of costs.18
CONCLUSION
¶ 7 The nondelegable, constitutional responsibility to regulate both the practice and the ethics, licensure, and discipline of the practitioners of the law is solely vested in this Court.19 Every lawyer is presented as a person worthy of competence and honesty in the performance of professional activities. It is our difficult duty to withdraw the license to practice law if necessary to protect the interest of the public, the legal profession and this tribunal.20 Any other approach would rightly confuse or equate a lawyer’s state franchise with a license to cheat the public.21
¶ 8 I would convert this matter to a Rule 10 proceeding, suspend the attorney until she can demonstrate her ability to practice to the Court;22 and impose costs.23 The majority’s failure to do so, in a situation where it recognizes that the facts warrant a finding of personal incapacity, raises the question of whether Rule 10 proceedings are ever appropriate or will be employed.

. Rule 10.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A provides in pertinent part:
"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
[[Image here]]

. Rule 10.11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A.

. Rule 1.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Mayes, 2003 OK 23, ¶ 17, 66 P.3d 398; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Holden, 1995 OK 25, ¶ 1, 895 P.2d 707; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, ¶ 5, 770 P.2d 892.

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Mayes, see note 3, supra; 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.

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Israel, see note 4, supra; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bolusky, 2001 OK 26, ¶ 14, 23 P.3d 268; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Dershem, 2001 OK 7, ¶ 12, 21 P.3d 639.

. Rule 6.12, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A; 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 3, supra.

. Transcript of proceedings, June 27, 2003, opening statement of counsel for the Bar Association providing in pertinent part at p. 8:
"... Along the way, Cathy — I think I can say this with her permission — encountered some difficulties with depression and it cause, at least, in part — probably not wholly but, at least, in part, the problems that have us before you today....”

. Transcript of proceedings, June 27, 2003, attorney testifying in pertinent part at pp. 17 — 18:
"... Q What led you, in September of 2001, to start winding down your practice?
A I had — I think, over the years, actually, probably for a period of at least ten years had been experiencing bouts of what I now believe to have been clinical depression....”

. It is worth noting that the grievances filed date between 2000 and 2002. Transcript of proceedings, June 27, 2003, attorney testifying in pertinent part:
at pp. 18-19: "... I just — I couldn’t decide at that time because I had been experiencing what was probably the most severe episode of depression that I'd had and the lengthiest. And at that time, I determined — I couldn't decide whether life was too short or life was too long to continue doing it. I didn’t feel like that I could — that I could handle it. I wasn't handling it the way that I knew I could or should and so I just decided' — at that point, I did ask a professional colleague for a referral to a therapist and then I began attending and I do still. I am still in therapy on a weeldy basis
at pp. 37: "... It — it did have a great impact. The periods of time when I was not in a depressive episode, I did very well as a practitioner in terms of being successful with whether it was appellate work or litigation. But- — and it — and it did negatively impact, but it's an explanation and that's all it is. And I have not sought treatment for it — I don't continue to seek treatment for it because of anything related to this complaint, these proceedings or anything of that nature. This is for me...."

. Transcript of proceedings, June 27, 2003, attorney testifying in pertinent part at pp. 19-20:
"... Q Can you see now, and where we are today, that your depression — what your depression had to do with the individual cases that we have before us?
A Yes. I don't think that — not for a minute do I think — I don't think my depression, my illness is an excuse, is excusable. It is an explanation and it certainly — it heavily impacted, but I would never think to say that, in total, that it was all to blame. You know, I certainly have had, I think, complicity in it, even if it was a failure to seek treatment or a failure to know when to cut and run, you know, from a case. But yes, it impacted it.... ”

. Transcript of proceedings, June 27, 2003, attorney testifying in pertinent part:
at pp. 19-20: "... But yet, it just — it just became — now, it wasn't realistically impossible but it felt impossible to do one more thing, even something as simple as filing an answer in a counterclaim when you can't even find the other party ... ”;
at p. 40: "... And there's an art to knowing when to stay and when to go, and I overstayed, you know, my welcome. I should have — when I felt an inability to do the most minimal thing, I mean, I needed to back — I needed to back out at that time and I didn’t....”

. Respondent's exhibit 1 is a letter dated June 24, 2003, from Maribeth Spanier, Ph.D., directed to the Bar Association. It provides in pertinent part:
"... Ms. Hummel initially sought treatment in August of 2001. She presented with a long history of Major Depression-Recurrent as evidenced by erratic sleep patterns, appetite disturbance, poor concentration and memory, volatile moods, apathy, amotivation, poor stress tolerance, hopelessness, and avoidance of stressful situation and people. By history, Ms. Hummel has experienced episodes of such depression for several years without treatment. Upon further evaluation, her report of her performance in her professional and personal life confirmed a recurrent pattern to her Depression.
Ms. Hummel’s Depression has significantly impaired her ability to respond to the Bar Association's complaints against her. Her response has been consistent with that of a person suffering Depression — overwhelmed, avoidant, and self-defeating. These are the same responses she had been demonstrating in her other professional and person endeavors....”

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Adams, 1995 OK 17, ¶¶ 12-13, 895 P.2d 701; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Donnelly, 1992 OK 164, ¶ 15, 848 P.2d 543.

. Rule 10.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, see note 1, supra.

. Id.

. See, opening statement of counsel for the Bar Association, note 6, supra. The majority opinion provides in pertinent part:
in ¶ 18: "... We have reviewed the evidence and find that the stipulations, findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record. Additionally, we find that Respondent’s depression was causally connected to her unethical conduct, beginning in most cases with neglect of a matter, which in turn led to more neglect....";
in ¶ 26: "... Moreover, her condition has been shown as a contributing factor to the neglect she showed in her clients' representation and in her reluctance to answer the Bar complaint....”
The trial panel report, filed on July 28, 2003, provides in pertinent part:
at p. 7: "... Based on the testimony of the Respondent and Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 the Trial Panel finds that the Respondent has had a history of major depression which has impaired her ability to respond to the bar complaints against her. She has been in treatment with a clinical psychologist and continues treatment at this time...."
at p. 4: "... The Respondent suffers from major depression-recurrent, a medical condition, and is taking steps to treat that condition. ...”

. Rule 10.1, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, see note 1, supra.

. Rule 10.11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, see note 2, supra.

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Holden, see note 3, supra; State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Farrant, 1994 OK 13, ¶ 8, 867 P.2d 1279; Tweedy v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 1981 OK 12, ¶ 4, 624 P.2d 1049.

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Raskin, 1982 OK 39, ¶ 22, 642 P.2d 262.

. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Miskovsky, 1992 OK 40, ¶ 15, 832 P.2d 814.

. Rule 10.11, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, see note 2, supra.

. Id.