 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Doris12/7/1999
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
RULE 6 BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
Respondent/attorney was charged with misconduct. A Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel found misconduct and recommends disbarrment. HELD: Respondent is guilty of multiple instances of misconduct. The appropriate discipline is disbarrment.
RESPONDENT DISBARRED; COSTS CHARGED TO RESPONDENT.
Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association brought disciplinary proceedings against respondent, Daniel Doris, under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, as amended. A Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel found violations of the RGDP and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 O. S. 1991, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, as amended, and recommends disbarrment. After de novo review, we find respondent guilty of numerous acts of misconduct and the appropriate discipline is disbarrment. We also hold respondent should pay the costs of these proceedings.
PART I. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
The standard of review in attorney disciplinary proceedings is as follows:
In attorney disciplinary proceedings this Court's determinations are made de novo. The ultimate responsibility for deciding whether misconduct has occurred and what discipline is warranted if misconduct is found rests with us in the exercise of our exclusive original jurisdiction in bar disciplinary matters. Accordingly, neither the findings of fact of a Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) nor its view of the evidence or credibility of witnesses are binding on us and recommendations . . . are merely advisory. (citations omitted) State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Todd, 1992 OK 81, 833 P.2d 260, 262.
The de novo review standard involves a full-scale exploration of all relevant facts. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Carpenter, 1993 OK 86, 863 P.2d 1123, 1128. As such, it requires a complete record be made before the trial panel - a record sufficient for an examination of all pertinent issues, a thorough inquiry into all essential facts, and the crafting of appropriate discipline. Id. at 1128-1129. The record presented is adequate for the required de novo review.
PART II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.
At the time of the trial panel hearing in June 1999 respondent was an attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and he was subject to this Court's jurisdiction. Five counts of misconduct were lodged: counts I-II by complaint filed in November 1998; counts III-IV by amended complaint filed in December 1998; and count V by second amended complaint filed in March 1999. Discipline enhancement was sought because in May 1995 respondent was privately reprimanded by the Professional Responsibility Commission for misconduct arising out of his failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing. The record shows the complaint, amended complaint and second amended complaint were furnished to and received by respondent.
Respondent filed a response to the complaint in December 1998. It stipulated to the allegations of count I, admitted some allegations of count II, claimed insufficient information to either admit or deny other allegations of count II, and denied other allegations of that count. No formal written answer or response was filed to the amended or second amended complaints, which both re-adopted and re-alleged counts I-II of the complaint.
The record includes the transcript of the June 1999 trial panel hearing, at which eight witnesses testified a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|