State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Allford
2006 Okla. LEXIS 89, 2006 OK 85, 152 P.3d 190 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's lack of diligence, failure to cooperate with a bar investigation, and dishonest conduct such as attempting to falsify a legal document warrants a significant suspension from the practice of law. An attorney's refusal to acknowledge culpability and lack of remorse are aggravating factors that justify a harsher sanction than what might otherwise be imposed.
Facts:
- On March 30, 1992, Richard Mackey hired and paid attorney Patricia Ann Allford to probate his parents' estates.
- By October 16, 2001, the probate was still not complete, and Mackey attempted to terminate Allford's services for failing to keep appointments and return calls, but Allford persuaded him to let her continue.
- On January 24, 2003, with the probate still incomplete, Mackey again tried to fire Allford and retrieve his file, but she again refused and convinced him to allow her to finish the case.
- On April 9, 2004, Mackey filed a written grievance against Allford with the Oklahoma Bar Association.
- On July 23, 2004, after being notified that the Hughes County Sheriff's office had received a subpoena for her deposition, Allford went to the office.
- Allford asked two Sheriff's employees to falsify the return of service on the subpoena to state that it was served on July 29th (the date of the deposition) instead of the actual date of July 23rd.
- Sometime in 2005, more than twelve years after being hired, Allford finally completed the probate for Mackey.
Procedural Posture:
- The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Patricia Ann Allford.
- The Bar and Allford stipulated to the facts and jointly requested that Allford receive a private reprimand.
- A hearing was conducted before a panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT).
- The PRT unanimously rejected the joint request and instead recommended that Allford receive a public reprimand.
- The matter then came before the Oklahoma Supreme Court for de novo review of the PRT's recommendation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's prolonged neglect of a client's case, coupled with dishonesty and a failure to cooperate during the ensuing bar investigation, warrant a suspension from the practice of law even if the client suffered no financial loss and the attorney has no prior disciplinary record?
Opinions:
Majority - Colbert, J.
Yes. An attorney's prolonged neglect of a client's case, combined with dishonest acts and a failure to cooperate with a bar investigation, justifies a suspension from the practice of law. The court found that Allford's most serious misconduct was not her dilatory representation of her client, but her subsequent dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Bar Association. During the disciplinary hearing, she contradicted her own factual stipulations, demonstrated no remorse, and attempted to deflect culpability, showing disrespect for the disciplinary process. Citing the principle that honesty and integrity are cornerstones of the legal profession, the court concluded that such conduct brings discredit upon the profession. Despite mitigating factors like no prior discipline and no financial loss to the client, the court determined that Allford's dishonesty and lack of remorse warranted a six-month suspension to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the profession.
Analysis:
This case establishes that an attorney's conduct during a disciplinary proceeding itself can be a more significant factor in determining sanctions than the underlying client complaint. It serves as a stern warning that dishonesty toward the Bar, attempting to subvert the investigatory process, and demonstrating a lack of remorse will be met with severe consequences, elevating a potential reprimand to a suspension. The court's decision to impose a harsher penalty than recommended by either the parties or the tribunal underscores the judiciary's low tolerance for conduct that undermines the integrity of the legal profession's self-regulatory system. This precedent emphasizes that cooperation and candor are paramount when an attorney is facing a grievance.
