STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEMOPOLOS

2015 OK 50

Summary: In STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEMOPOLOS, 2015 OK 5, the Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an interim suspension for attorney James M. Demopolos. The interim suspension was issued due to his entry of a guilty plea to charges of one count of Obstructing an Officer, one count of Threatening an Act of Violence, and one count of Domestic Abuse (Assault and Battery) in a deferred sentencing agreement. This is the final resolution of that matter. 

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.

As one would expect, an attorney is required to obey the criminal laws of the state. ORPC 8.4 (b) prohibits an attorney from committing a "criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." Thus matters such as routine traffic tickets or even a single DUI are not necessarily actionable. The commentary to the rule notes: "Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."

In case any ambiguity existed on the point, the Court ruled, "A lawyer's guilty plea or criminal conviction for a violent act of domestic abuse is a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 O.S. Ch. 1, App. 3-A, Rule 8.4(b).21 Respondent's guilty plea for a violent act of domestic abuse merits professional discipline imposed by this Court." (Emphasis in the original.)

Before entering discipline, the Court noted that Demopolos had been through a 30 substance abuse in-patient treatment and was now involved with AA after this incident. The Court recognized that Demopolos was on a two year suspended sentence and looked to other cases when the length of the criminal penalty was taken into account in discipline of attorneys. The Court further noted that "...[W]hile we have considered compliance with court-ordered conditions for the purpose of mitigating professional discipline, this Court expects a lawyer's compliance with a court order as a professional attribute and such compliance is not a quid pro quo for mitigation. A respondent's compliance with court orders, such as attendance and voluntary commencement in a treatment program, is merely one factor when we examine the record for evidence of an actual change in attitude and conduct that the lawyer's treatment is designed to foster." (Emphasis in the original.)

As part of its deliberations, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal recommended a six month suspension of Demopolos from the practice of law with two year and one day deferred suspension from the practice of law.

The Court created a more explicit set of rules governing deferred suspension, then entered discipline. The Court suspended Demopolos' license for one year, dating back to the date of the initial interim suspension on February 2, 2015. The Court entered a further year of deferred suspension to commence on February 2, 2015.

Deferred Suspension Rules: 

The Court crafted new rules for the category of attorney suspension designated as "deferred suspension". The Court noted that an attorney has a due process right to protection of his license to practice law, and that any suspension of that license even under a deferred suspension arrangement would trigger such due process rights. Therefore, the Court ordered an attorney practicing law while under a deferred suspension would have the following due process: That [the lawyer's] practice shall continue with General Counsel's notification filed in this Court showing (1) the Respondent has violated his probation, (2) a request that the Court immediately implement a deferred suspension, and (3) the General Counsel has provided notice to Respondent of the Bar's filing." The Bar can seek and the Court can grant interim suspension pending a court hearing based upon an alleged probation violation. But, an order of the Court implementing a deferred suspension of a lawyer's license to practice law because of a violation of the associated deferred-suspension conditions must be based upon facts before the Court showing that the lawyer has actually violated the probation.

Discussion: Justice Taylor entered a one-sentence dissent stating that he would not allow any attorney to practice law while under criminal probation.