No Further Discipline For Disrespectful Letter
The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to impose discipline based on a private reprimand from a federal appellate court
Respondent is a senior attorney licensed to practice law in Oklahoma and a member in good standing of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The Bar initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent based on professional discipline he received in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Respondent received a private reprimand for a letter he had written to the judges of the Tenth Circuit expressing displeasure with a ruling before that Court. The Bar recommended Respondent receive an equal or lesser discipline than that imposed by the Tenth Circuit. After a de novo review, this Court holds that no further discipline is warranted herein.
The letter came in the wake of a criminal appeal
The Tenth Circuit denied the request for habeas relief which prompted Respondent to write the letter in question to the judges of the Tenth Circuit to complain about the ruling. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Respondent’s letter disparaged “the judges, the court, and the federal judiciary as a whole” and found his conduct was “unbecoming a member of this court’s bar.” As a result, the Tenth Circuit issued a private reprimand to Respondent. Respondent did not seek to appeal the Tenth Circuit’s disciplinary decision; thus, the order of discipline is a final order for purposes of conclusively establishing the professional misconduct set forth therein.
The court here cited First Amendment concerns
Rule 8.2 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC) provides that “a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.” In State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Tweedy, 2000 OK 37, 52 P.3d 1003, the Court declined to impose discipline on the respondent for comments in his pleadings that certain members of the federal judiciary and members of the Bar’s Professional Responsibility Commission should be disbarred. Relying on Porter, the Court noted regarding Rule 8.2: “[t]he record is devoid of any attempts to show that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard to their falsity. In the absence of a showing of falsity, the statements must be held to be speech on vital issues of self-government protected by the first Amendment.” ld. at ¶ 30, 52 P.3d at 1009.
Respondent has conveyed his sincere belief that his client’s conviction was wrongly decided. While we do not condone the comments made by Respondent in his letter, we do not feel the expression of his frustration with the outcome of his client’s criminal case rises to a level warranting additional discipline. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit’s private reprimand suffices in this matter and no further discipline shall be imposed
After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court holds that no further discipline is necessary to be assessed against Respondent. While the tenor of the Respondent’s letter was indeed disrespectful, it was not so critical as to cross the line into misconduct worthy of additional discipline beyond that imposed by the Tenth Circuit. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the matter.
Two judges would impose a private reprimand. (Mike Frisch)