STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILKINS

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILKINS
2001 OK 100
37 P.3d 877
72 OBJ 3424
Case Number: SCBD-4652
Decided: 11/20/2001

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, Complainant
v.
JACK B. WILKINS, Respondent

¶0 RULE 8 APPLICATION
APPLICATION APPROVED.
RESPONDENT'S NAME STRICKEN
FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

Dan Murdock, General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, OK, for Complainant
Jack B. Wilkins, Pro Se Respondent, Oklahoma City, OK.

Watt, V.C.J.:

¶1 Respondent, Jack B. Wilkins, has tendered his resignation from membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association pending disciplinary proceedings. The Bar has filed an application for approval of respondent's resignation. Upon consideration of this matter, we find:

(a) On September 30, 1988, in OBAD #885, he was the subject of a private reprimand issued by the Professional Responsibility Commission of the Oklahoma Bar Association.

(b) On June 7, 1995, in SCBD #4024, he was the subject of a six (6) month suspension issued by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

4) Respondent was aware the following grievances have been lodged with the Office of the General Counsel and that investigations are proceeding with regard to these matters:

(a) DC 00-486. A grievance lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on December 29, 2000, which alleges that respondent was paid $1500 in February 1999 as full fee for a criminal appeal. It also alleges an additional $2100 payment for transcripts. Respondent failed to carry this representation through to its completion, failed to communicate with his client, and consequently his client obtained court appointed counsel to complete this matter.

(b) DC 01-035. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on January 24, 2001, which alleges that respondent neglected his client's case, failed to return unearned fees, and would not communicate with his client.

(c) DC 01-236. A grievance was lodged by the Office of the General Counsel on June 11, 2001, which alleges notice from the 10th Circuit that respondent failed to respond on nine occasions. Respondent has failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(d) DC 01-280. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on July 3, 2001, which alleges that respondent was retained to file a motion to expedite the release of the son of the individual making the grievance. He was in prison and had completed a drug treatment program. It further alleges respondent failed to communicate with the individual making the grievance. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(e) DC 01-297. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on July 25, 2001, which alleges respondent was retained in a case but neglected the matter and refused to communicate with the client. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(f) DC 01-299. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on July 26, 2001, which alleges respondent was retained for representation in several criminal cases, was suspended from the practice of law, dropped out of sight, and the client was forced to retain new counsel. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(g) DC 01-343. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on September 6, 2001, which alleges respondent neglected a client, failed to communicate with the client, and ignored two letters from the Office of the General Counsel. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(h) DC 01-356. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on September 24, 2001, which alleges respondent was paid $1000 immediately before he was suspended the from the practice of law. It further alleges respondent failed to appear in Court, failed to notify the client of the court date, and the case was subsequently dismissed due to the failure to appear. It is also alleged that respondent failed to communicate with the client after the case was dismissed, and did not respond to written correspondence from the client. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

(i) DC 01-359. A grievance was lodged with the Office of the General Counsel on September 26, 2001, which alleges that respondent failed to appear for his client's trial. Respondent failed to file a response pursuant to Rule 5.2, RGDP.

¶2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED

¶3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

¶4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

¶5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

¶6 DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001.

_____________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE