Timing Is Everything
An attorney who continued to practice in the wake of a disciplinary suspension was suspended for two years and a day by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The court rejected his alleged subjective belief about the effective date of the initial suspension
Knight testified he was ignorant of the proper ethical standards. Ignorance may be intentional or willful. For example, it has been a truism in different areas of the law that ignorance of facts provides no defense where ignorance is intentional and deliberate in circumstances that would, or should, require an ascertainment of the facts. While Knight’s testimony shows that his conduct appears to be an intentional ignorance of his ethical obligations, the evidence fails to show a bad or evil motive for his failure to timely withdraw from the proceedings. We decline to accept part of the Rule 6.4 admission as it relates to a violation of ORPC 8.4 and Knight’s failure to withdraw in a timely manner when representing criminal defendants…
A lawyer has a duty to know both the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. Knight stated that in 2014 he was not sure of the effective date of his suspension order. Knight did not contact the Bar in an attempt to discover the effective date of the Court’s order.
We have explained for the purpose of Rule 3.3, a lawyer’s professed subjective belief when representing a fact to a tribunal will be rejected when we determine the lawyer could not have reasonably believed what he or she claimed. Knight represented to the trial court that he was a licensed lawyer. He believed this was correct because he had the subjective belief that he was licensed until “the very, very end of August or – – or the first week of September.” We do not believe that Knight, or any licensed lawyer of this Court, could reasonably believe Knight’s method for calculating an effective date for a suspension order and seek to apply it indeterminately across a week to two-week period of time. Knight’s defense of subjective ignorance does not excuse him from a Rule 3.3 prohibition of knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. We find no issue to prevent Knight’s admission to Rule 3.3 violations.
ORPC 3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists. Knight’s subjective belief concerning his Bar status is unreasonable after he received notification of his suspension.
We have reviewed the entire record before us. There is no public interest present in the proceeding that would act to limit the scope of Knight’s Rule 6.4 admission beyond that discussed herein concerning Rule 8.4. We agree with the trial panel and deem the allegations of the Complaint admitted with the single exception of an admission that Rule 8.4 was violated by Knight’s untimely motion to withdraw and his misrepresentation of his Bar status.
Three justicees dissented and would disbar. (Mike Frisch)