Skip to main content

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

OKLAJanuary 22, 2002No. SCBD 4552Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Boudreau, Opala, Hargrave, Watt, Lavender, Summers, Winchester, Hodges, Kauger
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary suspension of attorney Larry Dean Wagener for 60 days for violations of professional conduct rules including client neglect, failure to respond to bar association demands, and mishandling of client property, but rejected the misrepresentation allegation due to insufficient evidence of intentional deceit.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About** This case involved attorney Larry Dean Wagener, who faced disciplinary action from the Oklahoma Bar Association for professional misconduct. The Bar Association accused him of several violations: neglecting his clients' cases, failing to respond when the Bar Association contacted him about complaints, mishandling client money or property, and making false statements. **What the Court Decided** The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended Wagener's law license for 60 days. The court agreed with most of the charges against him - they found he had indeed neglected clients, ignored the Bar Association's requests for information, and mishandled client property. However, the court rejected the claim that he intentionally made false statements, saying there wasn't enough proof he deliberately tried to deceive anyone. **Why This Matters for Workers** While this case specifically deals with lawyer discipline rather than typical workplace issues, it shows how professional oversight works. For workers in any licensed profession, it demonstrates that regulatory bodies can investigate misconduct complaints and impose penalties when professionals fail to meet their obligations. If you work with attorneys or other licensed professionals, know that oversight systems exist to hold them accountable for poor performance or ethical violations.

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

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Wagener from the same court.

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

Browse Related

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.