Concurrence Notes Concern About Future Possible Readmission
An attorney’s resignation has been accepted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court
Respondent’s affidavit notes that on June 16, 2020, this Court suspended her from the practice of law for one year, effective from October 22, 2019. See Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, 466 P.3d 551. The Rule 7 summary disciplinary proceeding and this Court’s imposition of discipline was based upon Respondent’s plea of guilty to two misdemeanor counts of (1) Falsely Reporting a Crime in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 589, and (2) Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1958.
The Oklahoman had reported on that offense
Wiping away tears, the former top lawyer at the Oklahoma Health Department pleaded guilty Wednesday to two misdemeanors for sending threatening emails to herself about medical marijuana regulations.
Julie Ezell, 38, of Edmond, had posed in the emails as a medical marijuana advocate threatening retribution if the Health Department imposed restrictive rules on its use. “We would hate to hurt a pretty lady. You will hear us,” one email said.
The new allegations involve failure to disclose relevant facts in response to bank notification of insufficient funds in her IOLTA account, a grievance brought by a client that Respondent had signed her name to a legal document without authorization and a self-report that Respondent had converted approximately $123,177.78 in client funds for her personal use.
Special concurrence by Justice Combs:
Her first disciplinary proceeding is detailed in our opinion for State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, 466 P.3d 551. While serving as General Counsel for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Respondent was “tasked . . . with drafting the rules and regulations to govern the implementation of legalized medical marijuana in Oklahoma.” Id. ¶ 4, 466 P.3d at 553. Respondent “experienced extreme stress due to the pressure to draft the medical marijuana rules,” which eventually led to her to “beg[in] sending threatening emails from a fictitious email address to her official government email address that appeared to be authored by the proponents of the medical marijuana referendum” in July of 2018. Id. ¶ 5, 466 P.3d at 553. Respondent “sent emails to herself containing escalating threats and falsely reported the emails to OSDH, which launched an OSBI investigation that cost over $20,000.” Id. ¶ 17, 466 P.3d at 555. After the OSBI discovered her ruse, Respondent “attempt[ed] to cover up her involvement in this scheme[, thereby] obstruct[ing] OSBI’s investigation, and [she] implicated a co-worker, a former high school acquaintance, and medical marijuana proponents as potential suspects”–all of which “resulted in the misuse and waste of state resources.” Id. On July 17, 2018, the Oklahoma County District Attorney charged Respondent with two felonies and one misdemeanor: (1) a felony count of Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes that Prohibit Sending Threatening Communications in violation of 21 O.S.2011, §§ 1172 and 1958; (2) a misdemeanor count of Falsely Reporting a Crime in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 589(A); and (3) a felony count of Preparing False Evidence in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 453. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, ¶ 9, 466 P.3d at 554; Criminal Information 1, State v. Ezell, No. CF-2018-3403 (Okla. Cty. Dist. Ct. filed July 17, 2018), attached as Ex. 1 to Notice of Deferred Sentence, State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Ezell, SCBD No. 6847 (Okla. filed Oct. 22, 2019). Respondent’s “actions gained wide-spread media attention on both the local and national level.” Ezell, 2020 OK 55, ¶ 20, 466 P.3d at 556. On October 16, 2019, Respondent negotiated a plea that deferred her sentence until October 15, 2024; she pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts in exchange for payment of $21,810 in restitution to the OSBI and a 5-year deferred sentence. Id. ¶ 9, 466 P.3d at 554; J. & Sentence & Summ. of Facts on Plea of Guilty Misdemeanor 2, State v. Ezell, No. CF-2018-3403 (Okla. Cty. Dist. Ct. filed Oct. 16, 2019), attached as Ex. 2 to Notice of Deferred Sentence, supra. Six days later, the Bar Association filed a Notice of Deferred Sentence pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, informing this Court of Respondent’s guilty plea and deferred sentence. This Court entered an Order of Immediate Interim Suspension pursuant to Rule 7.3 of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A, on November 4, 2019. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Ezell, 2019 OK 71, 90 OBJ 1311. Following a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal’s Trial Panel, this Court issued an opinion on June 16, 2020, suspending Respondent from the practice of law for one year effective from the date of her interim suspension. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, ¶¶ 23–24, 466 P.3d at 557. That discipline gave Respondent credit for her 7-month period of interim suspension, effectively reducing her suspension to 5 months. Id. ¶ 1, 466 P.3d at 558 (Combs, J., dissenting). It also allowed for Respondent to begin practicing law again once her suspension ended in November of 2020, well before her deferred sentence in the criminal case would expire in October of 2024. Id. ¶ 4, 466 P.3d at 558 (Combs, J., dissenting).
Now in what constitutes Respondent’s second disciplinary proceeding, Respondent acknowledges in her affidavit supporting her petition for resignation that she misappropriated “approximately $123,177.78 in client funds for [her] personal use from late fall of 2022 through August 14, 2024.” Aff. of Resignation Pending Disciplinary Proceedings ¶ 5(c), at 3. She also acknowledges that she “likely” forged a client’s name on a legal document but has no memory of doing so because her “judgment was compr[om]ised during that time period due to an addiction to prescription opiate pain medication.” Id. ¶ 5(b), at 2–3. It appears that no criminal charges have been filed in relation to Respondent’s conversion of client funds. Moreover, even though Respondent’s addiction and criminal conversion of funds would presumably serve as bases for accelerating her deferred sentence in the original criminal case, it would seem that never happened. Instead, as of this writing, the original criminal case appears to have been expunged less than a month after the deferred sentence expired, as the Oklahoma County Court Clerk has no record of Case No. CF-2018-3403 against Respondent. By all appearances, Respondent has avoided criminal sentencing for her actions once again.
I wish to reaffirm my position that this Court should not discipline attorneys with criminal convictions under Rule 7 of the RGDP in a manner that allows them to be readmitted while either a deferred sentence or a suspended sentence is pending. Respondent’s disciplinary history emphasizes my repeated concern that questions how this Court can protect the integrity of the legal profession if we allow a lawyer to practice law while on criminal probation with specific terms and conditions to avoid conviction or incarceration. See In re Reinstatement of Barnett, 2022 OK 87, ¶ 2, 520 P.3d 840, 846 (Combs, J., dissenting) (“Being on probation has the potential to cause irreparable damage to an attorney’s clients. A violation of any probationary term could cause the revocation of a suspended sentence and may result in the offending attorney being incarcerated,” particularly in a scenario where the attorney “has already admitted to [conduct] in violation of the terms of her probation”); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Bernhardt, 2014 OK 20, ¶¶ 5–6, 323 P.3d 222, 230 (Combs, J., dissenting); State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Brown, 2013 OK 40, ¶ 3, 303 P.3d 895, 902 (Combs, J., dissenting) (“Respondent has entered a plea of guilty to a felony and should not be allowed to practice law while his sentencing status remains in doubt. In short, being on felony probation is incompatible with the practice of law.”). Any lawyers on probation are one bad decision from ending up back in court with very real-life personal and professional consequences not only for themselves but also for their clients.
In my earlier dissent from Respondent’s first disciplinary proceeding, I was of the opinion that suspension from the practice of law for the duration of her lengthy deferred sentence was appropriate. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, ¶ 5, 466 P.3d at 559 (Combs, J., dissenting). Had we done so in June of 2020, we would not be here today on this petition for resignation, and we would not have had the victims of her most recent actions seeking compensation from her and possibly from the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Client Security Fund. Respondent’s reimbursement of the Client Security Fund is but one aspect of her potential reinstatement to the Bar. See Rule 11.1(b) of the RGDP, 5 O.S.2021, ch. 1, app. 1-A. To the extent reinstatement also looks at “[t]he severity of the original offense and the circumstances surrounding it” and at “[w]hether or not the applicant possesses good moral character,” id. at Rules 11.4, 11.5(a), I want the record to be clear for all future members of this Court who may decide whether to readmit Respondent in the future.
(Mike Frisch)