 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Oklahoma Bar Association v. Giger11/13/2001
__ P.3d __
BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
In this disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, the complaint alleges in four counts multiple instances of unprofessional conduct deemed to warrant sanctions. A trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal found that respondent's actions constitute grounds for professional discipline and recommended a ninety (90) day suspension together with supervision. Respondent has agreed to pay the costs of this proceeding. Upon de novo review of the evidence presented to the trial panel and acceptance of the parties' stipulations,
RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR ONE YEAR AND PLACED UNDER CONDITIONED SUPERVISION FOR TWO YEARS, BOTH THE SUSPENSION AND SUPERVISION TO BEGIN ON THE DAY THIS OPINION BECOMES FINAL, AND HE IS DIRECTED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,167.50, WHICH SHALL BE DUE NOT LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THIS OPINION BECOMES FINAL.
In this disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, the issues to be decided are: (1) Does the record submitted for our examination provide sufficient evidence for a meaningful de novo consideration of the complaint and of its disposition? and (2) Is a suspension from the practice of law for one year with a two-year conditioned supervision (the latter to run concurrently from the effective date of the suspension's beginning) an appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's breach of professional ethics? We answer both questions in the affirmative.
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE RECORD
On 28 March 2000, the Oklahoma Bar Association (the Bar) commenced this disciplinary proceeding against Cordes Martin Giger (respondent), a licensed lawyer, by filing a formal complaint in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). The complaint alleged in three counts multiple violations of the RGDP and of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct ("ORPC"). An amended complaint containing a fourth count was filed by the Bar on 6 September 2000.
On 27 September 2000, a trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal held a hearing to consider the charges. At the commencement of the hearing, the trial panel admitted into evidence a document containing the parties' stipulations of fact, conclusions of law, and an agreed disciplinary recommendation. Respondent admitted by stipulation that his conduct violated RGDP Rules 1.3 and 5.2 and ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). With respect to mitigation, the parties agreed that respondent's completion of a substance-abuse assessment and the modification of his prescription medications were factors to be considered. They recommended that respondent receive a ninety (90) day suspension from the practice of law followed by a period of supervision.
Upon completion of the hearing and consideration of the stipulations and testimony on file, the trial panel issued a report that incorporated the parties' stipulations. The panel also described with greater specificity respondent's illnesses and the problems he experienced with prescription medications, and recognized for purposes of mitigation his acceptance of responsibility for his professional misconduct and his otherwise unblemished bar disciplinary record. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for ninety (90) days and that he submit to periodic substance-abuse testing under the supervision of the Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee.
II. THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR A MEANINGFUL DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|