No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommendation and ordered the disbarred of Respondent attorney for professional misconduct, including client neglect and failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.
¶ 0 In an attorney-discipline proceeding initiated under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2021 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, Respondent was charged with five counts of professional misconduct. The charges contain multiple allegations that Respondent neglected his clients and the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed professional misconduct and failed to cooperate in responding to the grievances. The PRT recommended, by unanimous vote, that Respondent be disbarred. During the pendency of this Rule 6 proceeding, Complainant initiated a summary reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against Respondent under RGDP Rule 7.7. Upon de novo review, we order Respondent's disbarment pursuant to both RGDP Rules 6 and 7.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
¶0 Employer moved to dismiss Employee's claim pursuant to 85A O.S. § 69 (A)(4)(b) after Employee did not receive or seek medical benefits for a period of nine months. Administrative Law Judge denied Employer's motion to dismiss, and the Workers' Compensation Commission affirmed. We retained the matter for disposition and reverse the order of the Workers' Compensation Commission.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.