 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson4/13/1999
e entered.
In his "Show Cause Reply, the Respondent submitted the Stipulation of Facts upon which the Colorado suspension was imposed. The complaints in the Colorado proceedings involved Respondent's neglect of matters entrusted to him, failure to communicate with clients and inform them of the status of legal matters for which he was retained. In its order of suspension, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the stipulation of facts and discipline.
Under Rule 7.7, disciplinary action in another jurisdiction forms the basis for this Court's discipline of a lawyer and, the burden of proof is on the lawyer to support his claim that the finding was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma. Respondent's letter entitled "Show Cause Reply" contains no argument or citation of authority on either issue. He does not argue that the Colorado findings were not supported by the evidence - indeed, he stipulated to the facts on which discipline was imposed - and he makes no argument that the finding of the Colorado court does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma.
Respondent urges this Court, however, that some disciplinary action short of suspension should be imposed, or that if a period of suspension is imposed, it should be for less than the three year period of suspension imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. He offers, in mitigation, a detailed account of the numerous personal problems plaguing him during the time period involving the complaints in Colorado. The same facts in mitigation were presented to the Colorado Supreme Court, which imposed the lesser discipline of suspension, rather than disbarrment. We agree with the Colorado Supreme Court that the mitigating factors in the case indicated that a three-year suspension rather than disbarrment was the proper sanction. The court noted that Respondent had no previous discipline and, at the time of the misconduct, was experiencing personal and emotional problems and had demonstrated remorse.
The Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are substantially similar to the Oklahoma rules. Respondent's stipulated conduct, which resulted in a three-year suspension by the Colorado Supreme Court, would form the basis for similar discipline in Oklahoma. A three-year suspension is within the range of discipline that this Court has imposed for similar violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The order suspending Respondent in Colorado is prima facie evidence that Respondent committed the acts complained of and stipulated to. Respondent narrowly escaped being disbarred in Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court recognized that Respondent essentially had abandoned his law practice and his clients. Respondent has presented nothing that supports a claim that the findings of the Colorado Supreme Court adjudging him guilty of misconduct "does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma" under Rule 7.7, nor has he offered "evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline" under that rule. The acts upon which Respondent stands suspended in Colorado warrant like suspension in Oklahoma. It is so ordered.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OPINION.
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR
Page 1 2 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|