Skip to main content

State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wagener

OKLAJanuary 18, 2005No. SCBD #4797Cited 17 times
Defendant WinWagener$486.95 awarded

Case Details

Judge(s)
Colbert
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the Professional Responsibility Tribunal's recommendation of public censure and instead imposed a six-month suspension on attorney Larry Dean Wagener for multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including failure to file an appeal, inadequate client communication, and practicing law while under suspension.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About** This case involved attorney Larry Dean Wagener, who was disciplined by the Oklahoma Supreme Court for multiple violations of professional conduct rules while representing clients. The Oklahoma Bar Association brought charges against Wagener for several serious problems: he failed to file an appeal for a client when he was supposed to, didn't properly communicate with clients about their cases, and continued practicing law even while he was under suspension (meaning he wasn't legally allowed to work as a lawyer during that time). **What the Court Decided** The Oklahoma Supreme Court found Wagener guilty of these violations. While a lower tribunal had recommended only a public censure (a formal reprimand), the Supreme Court decided this wasn't strong enough punishment. Instead, they suspended Wagener's law license for six months and ordered him to pay $486.95 in damages. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that courts take attorney misconduct seriously, especially when it harms clients. Workers who hire lawyers for employment issues should know that attorneys face real consequences when they fail to do their jobs properly. If your lawyer isn't communicating with you or misses important deadlines, you have the right to file complaints with your state bar association.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

BAUGHMAN
OKLASep 2025

¶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.

Mixed Result
OBI HOLDING COMPANY v. SCHULTZ-BUTZBACH AND THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION
OKLASep 2025

¶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.

Defendant Win
Agrawal
OKLAOct 2015
Defendant Win
AGRAWAL
OKLAOct 2015
Defendant Win
OKLAHOMA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOC. v. OKLAHOMA MILITARY DEPT.
OKLAJun 2014
Plaintiff Win

Facing something similar at work?

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.