Gone To And From Texas
The Oklahoma Supreme Court disbarred an attorney for a second encounter with the disciplinary system.
The initial circumstances
The Respondent was licensed to practice law in the State of Texas in 2004 and was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar in 2011. In 2009, the Respondent moved to Oklahoma and continued to practice law in Texas, having not yet been licensed in Oklahoma. During that period she hired a Texas resident Jeffrey Gipson as a paralegal. The Respondent met Gipson while the two were studying for the Texas Bar Exam. Mr. Gipson had failed to pass the exam and had been performing paralegal work. The Respondent’s law office was essentially Gipson’s home in Texas and she maintained a P.O. Box in which both she and Gipson had access. In 2012, the Respondent had difficulty communicating with Gipson. In November 2012, while making a trip to the office, she noticed many boxes with her name on them and legal matters initiated by Gipson without her knowledge. She took the boxes and files with her to Oklahoma and spent the next few months reviewing them. By March 2013, she contacted Gipson and terminated their working relationship. The boxes contained many matters where she was representing persons without her knowledge. Some of these unknown clients filed grievances against her. Three of these grievances were the subject of Gaines I…
At the time of her probated suspension, the Respondent was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Bar Association instigated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7.7 RGDP. In April 2016, this Court issued an order directing the Respondent to show cause in writing why a final order of discipline should not be imposed or to request a hearing. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Gaines, 2016 OK 80, ¶7, 378 P.3d 212. The Respondent did not file a response, enter an appearance or request a hearing. Gaines, 2016 OK 80 at ¶7. This Court held “respondent committed an act of commingling and conversion, neglected legal matters, failed to communicate with clients, failed to supervise an employee that resulted in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to notify the General Counsel of her disciplinary proceeding.” Id. at ¶15. We also noted there was no indication the Respondent had been complying with the terms of her probation by making monthly restitution payments. Id. at ¶12. An opinion was issued by this Court on June 28, 2016, and Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Oklahoma for two years and one day. Id. This Court denied her petition for rehearing on September 12, 2016, and the case was closed the same day.
Here there was post-paralegal misconduct
We have conducted a de novo review of the record and find clear and convincing evidence that establishes the Respondent engaged in professional misconduct. Unlike Gaines I, it is clear here the Respondent conducted the settlement of the Gallegos sisters’ personal injury matter and she received the settlement funds. Initially, she failed to properly supervise her non-lawyer staff person, Gipson, and failed to provide her clients a copy of a written and signed contingency fee agreement. She endorsed the settlement checks herself and cannot recall who endorsed the names of the Gallegos sisters, but she does not dispute the sisters’ testimony that they did not endorse the checks nor authorize anyone else to endorse the checks. The funds were deposited into the Respondent’s operating account and not her trust account. No funds were delivered to the Gallegos sisters, nor were necessary payments made to all third parties. She settled the Gallegos case and failed to notify her clients and provide them a settlement statement describing the outcome of the case. Over several years the Respondent failed to satisfy the sisters’ requests for a status report. At the conclusion of the case she also failed to surrender any papers and property to her clients to which they were entitled. The Complainant’s brief alleges the evidence conclusively establishes the Respondent misappropriated her clients’ and third parties settlement proceeds. We agree.
Sanction
The record reflects the Respondent misappropriated her clients’ settlement proceeds. The Complainant has acknowledged mitigating factors including the Respondent’s lack of experience, stress of being a solo practitioner, and her remorse for the harm she has caused her clients and to the reputation of the legal profession. Nonetheless, the Complainant recommends the Respondent be disbarred retroactively from the effective date of her suspension in Gaines I. Misappropriation of a client’s funds warrants the harshest discipline and disbarment is appropriate here. The Respondent is hereby disbarred and her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys upon the date this opinion is filed.
(Mike Frisch)