Court Opinion

ID: 9581922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:31.757644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:20.729743
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
with whom DOOLIN, Justice, and SUMMERS, Justice, join, dissenting.
After reviewing the last three bar disciplinary proceedings involving Loren A. McCurtain,1 it appears to me that they should be reviewed as a continuing saga of personal incapacity to practice law, and that the cause should be remanded for proceedings under 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 10.2
*431COMPLAINT I
The first complaint filed on November 20, 1984, is the only one in which McCur-tain appeared and offered any evidence to mitigate discipline. The Bar alleged that McCurtain neglected two legal matters, by failing to initiate a probate matter or to file a lawsuit in a wrongful termination case. At the hearing on January 23,1985, McCur-tain testified that when he was first served by the Bar, he was trying a case in Pitts-burg County District Court; that he had tried to block the notice of disciplinary proceedings out of his mind; and that did not read the charges until he contacted a lawyer to represent him. He also stated that he had been treated with antidepressants for at least fifteen years and that after his wife divorced him in 1981, he became anxious and suffered from crying spells, low energy level, decreased ability to concentrate, feelings of inadequacy, feelings of being overwhelmed, and guilt regarding his divorce and family.
On August 25, 1982, McCurtain admitted himself to Carl Albert Community Mental Health Center because he thought he was losing his mind and suffering a nervous breakdown. After being released on September 15, 1982, he continued psychiatric treatment until he found that the cost was prohibitive based on his average yearly income of $14,000 to $17,000. McCurtain’s personal psychiatrist reported to the Bar that, after McCurtain was dismissed from the inpatient clinic, he was coherent and in touch with reality. However, McCurtain testified that he did not discuss with the doctor any problems or doubts he was having in his professional life.
The trial panel determined that McCur-tain should be suspended for one year. It recommended that McCurtain meet the following conditions before reinstatement to active practice:
(1)Pay the costs of the proceedings.
(2) Repay his clients with interest.
(3) Receive treatment from competent mental health professionals who have been furnished with a complete transcript of the Tribunal’s proceedings and provide an evaluation from those treating professionals to the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, prior to the termination of the suspension, to the effect that McCurtain is capable of performing his professional responsibilities in a consistently competent and ' trustworthy manner.
(4) Furnish the Professional Responsibility Tribunal with a written certificate signed by members of a committee of lawyers appointed by the Pittsburg County Bar Association, that in their opinion, the respondent possesses, at the time termination of suspension is requested, sufficient professional skills and knowledge to competently represent the affairs of his clients.
Neither the Bar nor McCurtain objected to the suggested conditions. However, condition (3) concerning treatment by competent mental health professionals was not included in either this Court’s March 4, 1986 opinion or the January 14, 1987 opinion.
COMPLAINT II
The second complaint involving neglect of a legal matter was filed May 8, 1986. McCurtain had been retained to foreclose on a mortgage. After he failed to file a petition in the trial court, the mortgaged house was tom down. When McCurtain appeared for his deposition to be taken, he offered to either continue his representation of the client or to return the client’s documents and to refund attorney fees. The client elected to have the documents returned and the attorney fees refunded. McCurtain failed to do either, and on February 14, 1987, he was suspended until March 3, 1989.
*432COMPLAINT III
The third complaint also involved neglect of legal matters. McCurtain filed a petition for divorce but took no further action, nor did he return some personal items of a decedent in a probate action. Although the Bar did not bring this complaint under 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 10, McCur-tain’s attorney, admittedly unfamiliar with bar disciplinary matters, attempted to show that his client’s neglect was because of his mental incapacity.
CONCLUSION
Subsection (a) and (b) of Rule 10 which define “personally incapable of practicing law” as including mental or physical illness, or a pattern of repeated neglect of legal matters is applicable here. Repeated neglect of duty in respect to the affairs of a client coupled with the appearance of mental and physical illness is readily apparent. This proceeding should be remanded for Rule 10 proceedings.

. CHRONOLOGY
May 8, 1984 Larry Butler filed a grievance with the Bar.
May 14, 1984 A letter was sent to McCur-tain advising him of the grievance. No response.
May 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Jones filed a grievance with the Bar.
May 31, 1984 A letter was sent to McCur-tain advising him of the grievance. No response.
June 8, 1984 J.C. Pratt filed a grievance with the Bar.
June 15, 1984 A letter was sent to McCur-tain advising him of the grievance. No response.
November 20, 1984 First complaint filed with this Court.
October 16, 1985 Alfred Wilson filed a grievance with the Bar.
November 6, 1985 A letter was sent to McCur-tain advising him of the grievance.
November 21, 1985 McCurtain acknowledges receipt of the letter and asks for additional time to respond.
December 6, 1985 Bar grants additional time. McCurtain never filed a response.
March 4, 1986 This Court hands down the first opinion in which McCurtain is suspended for one year. As a precondition to reinstatement he must pay the costs of the proceeding; repay two clients and produce a written certificate signed by members of a committee of lawyers that McCurtain possesses sufficient professional skills and knowledge to competently represent his clients.
May 8, 1986 The second complaint is filed by the Bar.
September 30,1986 Neil Johnson filed a grievance with the Bar.
October 1, 1986 Ollie Smith filed a grievance with the Bar.
October 15, 1986 A letter is sent to McCurtain advising him of both grievances. No response.
February 14, 1987 The second opinion is handed down by this Court and McCurtain is suspended until March 3, 1989 with the same conditions required in the first opinion.
July 29, 1987 The Bar files the complaint with this Court.

. Title 5 O.S.1981 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Rule 10 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;
*431(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.”