IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF PERRY

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF PERRY
2010 OK 79
Case Number: SCBD-5591
Decided: 11/09/2010

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF LAYTON M. PERRY, JR. TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

¶0 Petitioner, Layton M. Perry, Jr., was disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys on March 11, 1997. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Perry,

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT DENIED;
PETITIONER ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF $2,484.37.

Charles F. Alden, III, Alden Dabney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for petitioner.
Gina L. Hendryx, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for respondent.

TAYLOR, V.C.J.

¶1 The petitioner, Layton M. Perry, Jr., was disbarred on March 11, 1997, and did not seek rehearing of the decision. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Perry,

¶2 This Court is vested with the duty to regulate the practice, ethics, discipline, and licensure of the practice of law in this State. Id. ¶11, 236 P.3d at 100. We are not bound by the findings or recommendations of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) but are required to examine the record and make an independent decision based on all relevant facts. Id. ¶11, 236 P.3d at 101.

¶3 Before an attorney who has been disbarred may be readmitted to the practice of law, he must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence, if readmitted, that the prerequisites for reinstatement are satisfied and that his conduct will conform to the high standards required of a member of the bar association. Id. ¶ 12, 236 P.3d at 101. "The applicant must present stronger proof of qualifications than one seeking first time admission." Id. (citing Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2001, ch. 1, app. 1-A, rule 11.4).

¶4 The PRT must make specific findings as to whether the petitioner possesses the good moral character necessary for admittance to the practice of law; whether the petitioner has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension, disbarment, or resignation; and whether the petitioner possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admittance to the practice of law. Rule 11.5, RGDP. In its thorough report, the PRT found that Perry did not substantially comply with rule 9.1 of the RGDP requiring him to notify his clients of his inability to represent them, that Perry failed to present clear and convincing evidence of good moral character, that Perry failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he had not engaged in the practice of law since being disbarred, that Perry did not have the competency and learning in the law required for admission to the practice of law in Oklahoma, that Perry had not made restitution in a civil fraud case, and that Perry expressed no regret or remorse about his fraudulent conduct. The PRT recommended that Perry's petition for reinstatement be denied and that he be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. Although we are not bound by the PRT's findings or recommendation, our complete review of the record requires the Court to agree that Perry should not be reinstated.

¶5 One consideration in reinstatement proceedings is whether the petitioner engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Munson,

¶6 A second consideration in reinstatement proceedings is whether the petitioner complied with rule 9.1 of the RGDP.

¶7 A third consideration in this reinstatement proceeding is Perry's failure to comply with this Court's directive for him to pay the costs of $2,339.84 within thirty days of the date the opinion became final, i.e., within thirty days of March 11, 1997. Perry made no payment on the costs until July of 2005. In a letter to the OBA, Perry apparently enclosed a check for the payment of the costs, plus $125.00 for a dishonored check. In the letter, he stated that he intended to file for reinstatement. Perry ignored this Court's order for the payment of costs of the disbarment proceedings for over eight years and did not make any payment until he decided to apply for reinstatement.

¶8 A fourth consideration in reinstatement proceedings is the petitioner's moral character. Rule 11.4, RGDP; Munson,

¶9 A fifth consideration in reviewing a reinstatement petition is the original misconduct's seriousness. Rule 11.4, RGDP; Munson,