STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMPSON

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMPSON
2008 OK 89
194 P.3d 1281
Case Number: SCBD-5247
Decided: 09/23/2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
DONALD D. THOMPSON, Respondent.

RULE 7 BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

¶0 Respondent attorney was convicted of four felony counts of indecent exposure in violation of

RESPONDENT DISBARRED AND HIS NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL
OF ATTORNEYS, THE DISBARMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE
RESPONDENT WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT'S DECEMBER 4, 2006,
ORDER OF INTERIM SUSPENSION.

Dan Murdock, General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for Complainant.
No appearance for Respondent.

REIF, J.:

¶1 This case is before the Court to determine the final discipline to be imposed on Respondent attorney Donald D. Thompson, pursuant to Rule 7 (Summary Disciplinary Proceedings Before Supreme Court) of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App.1-A, as amended. These proceedings began in September 2006 when Complainant, the Oklahoma Bar Association, by letter from its General Counsel's Office, notified this Court that Respondent was convicted and sentenced on four felony charges in the District Court of Creek County. The felony convictions were for indecent exposure in violation of

¶2 Upon Respondent's appeal of the convictions to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the imposition of final discipline, if any, was deferred until that appeal was decided. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. On September 27, 2007, in Case No. F-2006-901, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions in a not for publication Summary Opinion. The Oklahoma Bar Association notified this Court of the affirmance in November 2007.

¶3 In March 2008, this Court issued an Order giving Respondent an opportunity to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be made. Respondent was directed to inform this Court whether he desired a hearing in the matter and, if not, he was allowed to submit a brief and documents to explain his conduct or mitigate the severity of discipline. The Oklahoma Bar Association was afforded the opportunity to respond to any submissions by legal brief and documentary evidence supporting its recommendation as to discipline. To date, Respondent has not responded to the March 2008 Order. In April 2008, the Oklahoma Bar Association waived the opportunity to respond or file a brief, but requests in the waiver that Respondent be disbarred.

¶4 In State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Shofner,

¶4 In disciplinary proceedings this Court acts as a licensing court in the exercise of our exclusive original jurisdiction, not as a reviewing tribunal. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Downing,

¶5 Our responsibility is not to punish the offending lawyer, but to assess his/her continued fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Meek,

¶6 Mitigating circumstances are also often considered when assessing the appropriate measure of discipline. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Thomas,

Upon the consideration of the record in light of these principles, we agree with the Oklahoma Bar Association that disbarment is the appropriate discipline.

¶5 The Third Amended Felony Information filed in the criminal case indicates the instances of indecent exposure occurred, respectively: Count 1, on or between May 5, 2003 and June 10, 2003; Count 2, on or between August 21, 2003 and August 26, 2003; Count 3, on or between September 8, 2003 and September 18, 2003; and Count 4, on or between October 14, 2002 and October 25, 2002. All four Counts list the address of the Creek County Courthouse as the public place where the crimes occurred.

¶6 At a minimum, Respondent's conduct violated Rule 8.4(b) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct , 5 O.S.2001, Ch.1, App. 3-A, which provides, "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." It also violated Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, which provides:

The commission by any lawyer of any act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct, whether in the course of his professional capacity, or otherwise, which act would reasonably be found to bring discredit upon the legal profession, shall be grounds for disciplinary action, whether or not the act is a felony or misdemeanor, or a crime at all. Conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to the imposition of discipline.

These violations warrant discipline of a severe nature, particularly in the absence of mitigating evidence or some explanation to lessen the discredit Respondent has brought on both the judiciary and legal profession.

¶7 This Court is cognizant that discipline less than disbarment has been imposed in cases where the issue of the appropriate discipline arose from a felony conviction. See State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wyatt,

¶8 Respondent stands convicted of crimes that demonstrate his unfitness to practice law. His criminal behavior is not only socially unacceptable, but is an affront to the judicial branch of government and the legal profession. Such conduct can do nothing other than to undermine public confidence and trust in the dignity and integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession. In light of our responsibility to protect the public and to preserve the trust and confidence in those individuals who are licensed by this Court as legal practitioners, and considering the nature of these crimes, we hold disbarment is warranted.

¶9 IT IS ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT, DONALD D. THOMPSON IS DISBARRED AND HIS NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS, THE DISBARMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE RESPONDENT WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS COURT'S DECEMBER 4, 2006, ORDER OF INTERIM SUSPENSION.

¶10 ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Third Amended Felony Information indicates the crimes occurred at 222 E. Dewey, City of Sapulpa. The 2007 Oklahoma Legal Directory, Official Directory of the Oklahoma Bar Association, page 183, sets out the physical address of the Creek County Courthouse in Sapulpa as "222 East Dewey Street."