IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF KERR

2015 OK 9

Summary: Robert Samuel Kerr, IV, is readmitted into the Oklahoma Bar Association after successfully completing a suspension of two years and one day. On July 30, 2010, Kerr was charged with one felony count of offering a bribe to a police officer to not attend a hearing on the suspension of a client's driver's license. In April 2012 the charge was reduced to one count of obstruction of a police officer and Kerr pled guilty to that charge under a deferred plea sentencing agreement. In 2012 OK 108 the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the matter and suspended Kerr's license to practice law for a period of two years and one day. Kerr successfully completed his parole period and acted to help lawyers avoid the pitfalls that led to his suspension. Kerr applied for readmission after the two years and a day had passed and a hearing was held before the Oklahoma Bar Association's disciplinary tribunal. The tribunal unanimously recommended that Kerr be reinstated. Upon a de novo review of the tribunal's recommendation the Oklahoma Supreme Court readmitted Kerr.

Legal Issues: The Oklahoma Supreme Court is directly responsible for the accreditation of attorneys in the state of Oklahoma. This is accomplished through the Oklahoma Bar Association and its enforcement of the Oklahoma Rules for Professional Conduct for Attorneys ("ORPC").  If an attorney seeks readmission after a suspension of more than two years, or after disbarment, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP"). 

Because the change of status of an attorney from 'suspended' to 'good standing' is of public significance, all attorney licensure matters are published, regardless of whether a novel legal question is involved. 

An applicant for readmission must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant will conform to the high standards expected of a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. The applicant must present stronger proof of qualifications than a first-time applicant for the bar.

Reviewing the hearing before the tribunal, the Court determined that Kerr met his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence: 1) stronger proof of his present moral fitness to practice law than would a first-time applicant for admission; 2) Kerr's consciousness of his wrongdoing and the disrepute his wrongdoing brought upon the profession; and, 3) that the severity of the prior conduct did not prohibit readmission.

In particular, the Court examined Kerr's actions since his suspension and found that he had made significant activity in expressing his remorse, working consistently and with integrity as a landman in the oil and gas business, and counseling young lawyers to avoid the pitfalls that led to his difficulties.

Discussion: The Court recognizes that people can experience difficulties and return from them stronger than before. Lawyers are people like any other and not immune to the host of human frailties that beset every person. Similarly, lawyers can rebound from these difficulties stronger than before. The Court's policing of the bar includes an opportunity for those who will take it to turn weaknesses and mistakes into strengths and triumphs.