Reinstatement Denied

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has denied a petition for reinstatement

Petitioner’s suspension and resignation stemmed from a rash of criminal charges against her that began in 2011. In 2011, Petitioner was in a relationship with a former client, Roy Kuykendall. At that time, Kuykendall was incarcerated, so Petitioner and Kuykendall made a plan for him to escape from the prison. On July 9, 2011, Petitioner picked Kuykendall up when he was supposed to be on the work release program. Petitioner posted pictures of herself and Kuykendall on social media and met with Petitioner’s brother in Bricktown. Petitioner’s brother alerted the authorities that Kuykendall was a fugitive and Petitioner was harboring him. Petitioner was charged in Canadian County District Court CF-2011-455 with assisting a prisoner to escape and charged in Oklahoma County District Court case number CF-2011-4024 with harboring a fugitive.

Petitioner’s second incident occurred when she contacted the Nichols Hills Police Department, stating that there were two men trying to get into her residence with weapons. When officers arrived, they found Petitioner with four children in her car. The children insisted that they had not seen anyone in the home. Officers noticed Petitioner’s strange behavior during this time and were advised by EMSA and the fire department personnel on the scene that Petitioner was under the influence of narcotics. Petitioner was subsequently arrested and charged in Oklahoma County CF-2012-80 with four counts of felony child endangerment and one misdemeanor count of knowingly making a false report of a crime.

These allegations resulted in the OBA filing a complaint and request for interim suspension of Petitioner’s bar license on December 30, 2011. Petitioner was given the opportunity to show cause why the order of interim suspension should not be ordered. Through counsel, Petitioner responded to the show cause order on January 17, 2012, generally denying that her continued practice posed an immediate threat of substantial harm to the public and requested a hearing before the PRT. A second show cause order requested the parties to show why Petitioner was not unfit to practice due to her habitual substance abuse.

While her case was pending, Petitioner was arrested again on February 6, 2012, for public intoxication and possession of drug paraphernalia. In this case, Petitioner was at a Love’s in Logan County when she stopped a police officer and asked for a ride to her home. When asked why she needed a ride, Petitioner told the officer that she had met a man at a truck stop in Oklahoma City, that they were smoking out of glass pipes, and she believed he may have drugged her because she felt really funny. The officer checked her pupils and determined that she was intoxicated. After putting her in the patrol car, she told the officer to look in her left jacket pocket, where a glass pipe with white residue and burnt brownish residue in the bowl. Upon testing, the pipe showed a positive result for methamphetamine. Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and public intoxication in Logan County District Court case number CF-2012-34.

This Court entered an interim suspension of Petitioner on February 14, 2012, in case number SCBD 5827.

Petitioner’s final criminal case stemmed from her arrest on August 9, 2012, when she caused a personal injury accident while she was driving under the influence of drugs. She was charged with that crime in Oklahoma County District Court case number CM-2012-2910.

Petitioner then resigned from the Bar.

As to reinstatement

While Petitioner has shown steadfast progress toward her sobriety, the seriousness of the original crimes should not be discounted. Petitioner’s rash of poor decision making brought disrepute on the entire legal community. Due to the gravity and number of Petitioner’s admitted crimes, and the disrepute brought upon the legal profession, this Court finds that there is insufficient evidence of the requisite good moral character to support Petitioner’s request for reinstatement.

Additionally, a review of the transcript does not support a finding that Petitioner is competent to resume the practice of law. The overwhelming evidence presented by counsel for the OBA supports the conclusion that Petitioner is not competent to practice law and should not be reinstated. Petitioner did not present testimony from any former employer which would support the assertion that she is competent to be a practicing attorney. Further, Petitioner’s questioning of witnesses was erratic and unintelligible at times. She asked compound and convoluted questions. Petitioner’s own testimony was erratic and long-winded. Even when Petitioner was aware that her legal competency was seriously challenged, she failed to make certain that her written submissions were impeccable. Instead, her briefs and other filings were filled with errors.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that she has maintained her competency and learning in the law.

(Mike Frisch)