STATE ex. rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATON v. BARNETT (Correction Order)

STATE ex. rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATON v. BARNETT (Correction Order)
1997 OK 110
Case Number: SCBD-4176
Decided: 08/13/1997
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
LARRY D. BARNETT, Respondent.

CORRECTION ORDER

¶1 The opinion of this Court herein, 1997 OK 61, shall be corrected by the following:

¶2 Paragraph number 12 of the opinion shall be corrected to:

¶12 The PRT found that the Bar Association had not proven by clear and convincing evidence the violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1,2(a), 1.3, 1.5(c), 1.15(a) and (b), 1.16(d) and 3.2. The PRT found that the Bar had met its burden with regard to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a), 8.1(b), and Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Procedure.

¶3 Paragraph number 18 of the opinion shall be corrected to :

¶18 The PRT found that Barnett had violated Rules 1.4(a) and 8.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Again we agree. Rule 1.49a) reqires an attorney to keep his client informed about the status of the case, and to comply with reasonable requests for information. Barnett did neither. He admitted that he did not return phone calls. He admitted receiving a certified letter from the Levingstons requesting information about the case. He never informed the about his decision to not pursue the appeal or that the appeal had been dismissed, even after their repeated inquiries. See State ex rel. Okla, Bar, Ass'n v. Adams, 895 P.2d 701 (Okla. 1995)(failure to keep clients informed of the status of their case is a violation of rule of professional conduct); State ex rel. Okla, Bar, Ass'n v. Briery, 914 P.2d 1046 (Okla. 1996)(failing to notify client of the status of case warranted discipline).

¶4 The opinion shall remain unchanged in all other respects.