Summary: The law license of attorney Christopher I. Mansfield, has been suspended for a period of eighteen months resulting from irregularities in a probate proceeding.
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 is alleged to have violated the ORPC, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP").
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 is alleged to have violated the ORPC, the Oklahoma Bar Association investigates as outlined in the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings ("RGDP").
Because the change of status of an attorney from 'good standing' to 'suspended' is of public significance, all attorney licensure matters are published, regardless of whether a novel legal question is involved.
Attorney Mansfield encountered significant and severe personal issues related to the estrangement of his wife and eventual divorce. During this time, Mansfield was appointed to serve as Successor Trustee of the Elizabeth S. Cox Revocable Trust and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Elizabeth S. Cox by the Tulsa County Court. During the course of this representation, Mansfield oversaw the sale of property and marshaling of assets for an estate of slightly over $500,000. During the course of these events, Mansfield encountered significant monetary challenges due to his personal and marital problems, and transferred approximately $45,000 from the estate to himself. Mansfield justified these transfers to himself at the time as being for services rendered to the estate, although he did not get the required judicial permission to make these withdrawals.
Later, the estate came to mediation in an attempt to reach reconciliation between the various adversarial beneficiaries of the estate. At the mediation, Mansfield agreed to reduce his fee to $27,500 and did not disclose his prior withdrawals. Mansfield then presented the reduced fee to the district court for approval, noting the total amount of the estate for distribution was approximately $491,000, with the difference between the full amount and the listed amount being those fees previously withdrawn by Mansfield. One of the attorneys for one of the beneficiaries noted the discrepancy in the amounts and questioned Mansfield about it. Mansfield first attempted to attribute the costs to property maintenance charges, but soon admitted what he had done. Thereafter, Mansfield discussed the matter with the Oklahoma Bar Association's Ehthics Counsel, retained a lawyer to represent him, and admitted his actions to the Bar for investigation.
As one would expect, an attorney is required to be honest in his dealings with all persons, the Court most definitely included. ORPC 8.4. Mansfield's downfall was not the amount of the fee, which may well have fallen within the normal range of fees recovered by attorneys for work similar to that which he performed. Rather, his fault lay in taking the fee without the proper judicial permission and then attempting to cover up that fact through false statements to the Court and to others.
The Court did look at several mitigating factors before issuing punishment. First, Mansfield is by all accounts a good attorney who has received Bar association awards for his work as a guardian ad litem. The judge who appointed him to serve in the Cox estate has since appointed him to serve in other matters with full knowledge of what happened, and expressed the opinion that this was a one-time indiscretion. Also, Mansfield reported this matter to the bar himself and offered to make restitution for the offense.
With all of these factors before it, the Court imposed an eighteen month suspension on Mansfield's law license. Because the suspension is for under two years, assuming that Mansfield has no further issues appear, he can resume his practice of law at the conclusion of the suspension without making further application for reinstatement.
Later, the estate came to mediation in an attempt to reach reconciliation between the various adversarial beneficiaries of the estate. At the mediation, Mansfield agreed to reduce his fee to $27,500 and did not disclose his prior withdrawals. Mansfield then presented the reduced fee to the district court for approval, noting the total amount of the estate for distribution was approximately $491,000, with the difference between the full amount and the listed amount being those fees previously withdrawn by Mansfield. One of the attorneys for one of the beneficiaries noted the discrepancy in the amounts and questioned Mansfield about it. Mansfield first attempted to attribute the costs to property maintenance charges, but soon admitted what he had done. Thereafter, Mansfield discussed the matter with the Oklahoma Bar Association's Ehthics Counsel, retained a lawyer to represent him, and admitted his actions to the Bar for investigation.
As one would expect, an attorney is required to be honest in his dealings with all persons, the Court most definitely included. ORPC 8.4. Mansfield's downfall was not the amount of the fee, which may well have fallen within the normal range of fees recovered by attorneys for work similar to that which he performed. Rather, his fault lay in taking the fee without the proper judicial permission and then attempting to cover up that fact through false statements to the Court and to others.
The Court did look at several mitigating factors before issuing punishment. First, Mansfield is by all accounts a good attorney who has received Bar association awards for his work as a guardian ad litem. The judge who appointed him to serve in the Cox estate has since appointed him to serve in other matters with full knowledge of what happened, and expressed the opinion that this was a one-time indiscretion. Also, Mansfield reported this matter to the bar himself and offered to make restitution for the offense.
With all of these factors before it, the Court imposed an eighteen month suspension on Mansfield's law license. Because the suspension is for under two years, assuming that Mansfield has no further issues appear, he can resume his practice of law at the conclusion of the suspension without making further application for reinstatement.
Discussion: The legal profession requires its practitioners to be honest in their dealings with their clients. Failure to do so necessarily results in discipline. Mansfield's case appears to be that of a good attorney who finds himself in difficult personal situation and, as a result, who temporarily makes bad decisions. It speaks well of Mr. Mansfield that he recognized his error and corrected it even though the path to do so was not easy.
They went too easy on this slime and the ilk given to hiring him for his base ethics
ReplyDeletePlease remember that this case involves only the attorney's license to practice law. Other settlements or litigation may have taken place regarding any actual or alleged wrongdoing by the attorney toward his client.
ReplyDelete