In re McLaughlin

419 P.3d 239

In the MATTER OF the Reinstatement of William Martin MCLAUGHLIN, to Membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association and to the Roll of Attorneys

Case Number: SCBD-6517

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Decided: May 15, 2018

Tom M. Cummings, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioner.

Stephen L. Sullins, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent.

GURICH, VCJ.:

Facts and Procedural History

¶ 1 William Martin McLaughlin graduated from Oklahoma City University School of Law in May of 1988. Following successful completion of the bar examination, he was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association (hereinafter "OBA") on October 5, 1988. For the first seven years in practice, McLaughlin resided in Stillwater and worked as an assistant district attorney for Logan and Payne Counties. McLaughlin left the district attorney's office in 1995, to begin a private practice.

¶ 2 In September 1997, McLaughlin was involved in an automobile accident which severely injured his left arm. Prior to the accident, McLaughlin had been a "scratch" golfer, but the extensive injury ended his ability to play competitive golf. Consumed with physical pain and depression, McLaughlin began self-medicating with alcohol. As his use of alcohol escalated, McLaughlin accumulated multiple criminal charges. During the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (hereinafter "PRT"), McLaughlin testified that he had been charged in sixteen separate criminal cases, all of which were connected to his abuse of alcohol. The vast majority of these criminal charges were for driving under the influence or public intoxication.¹

¶ 3 On January 30, 2007, the OBA filed a Complaint against McLaughlin asserting he should be immediately suspended pursuant to Rule 10 under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings² (hereinafter "RGDP"), and subject to discipline under RGDP Rule 7. The OBA's Complaint alleged McLaughlin: 1) should be immediately suspended pursuant to RGDP Rule 10, due unfitness to practice law caused by alcoholism; and 2) was subject to discipline under Rule 7 based on his guilty pleas in several criminal cases. During 2007, McLaughlin was the subject of six different OBA investigations; five of the matters were predicated on grievances levied by former clients and one was brought independently by OBA General Counsel.

¶ 4 On April 23, 2007, this Court issued an order suspending McLaughlin's OBA license as a result of his being "personally incapable of practicing law within the meaning of Rule 10."³ Subsequently, orders were entered, striking McLaughlin's name from the OBA rolls for non-payment of dues and non-compliance with continuing legal education requirements.⁴ Following an application by the OBA, we issued another order on February 14, 2011, finding the April 2007 suspension was a final adjudication of McLaughlin's status. Additionally, the order dismissed any Rule 7 charges and informed McLaughlin that any future attempt to qualify for reinstatement would require him to "meet the burdens of both Rule 10.11 and 11.4 of the RGDP."⁵ Because this Court dismissed the Rule 7 charges, McLaughlin was never subjected to disciplinary action for his criminal misconduct.

¶ 5 On May 31, 2017, McLaughlin filed a petition seeking reinstatement with the OBA. A hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal was held on August 17, 2017. OBA investigator, Rhonda Langley, testified before the panel that she had conducted numerous background checks on McLaughlin in preparation for the reinstatement hearing. Her findings included the following: (1) a claim of $500.00 had been made against the Client Security Fund by one of McLaughlin's former clients and this sum had been repaid; (2) McLaughlin was not on probation for any of his criminal cases; (3) all fees due and owing to the OBA had been paid in full; and (4) McLaughlin had been the subject of six grievances and he had fully responded to each matter.⁶ Multiple witnesses testified regarding McLaughlin's sobriety, his remorse and humiliation for his abhorrent behavior while drinking, and the marked changes in McLaughlin as a result of his rehabilitation and recovery through Alcoholics Anonymous.

¶ 6 In accordance with RGDP Rules 11.4 and 11.5, the PRT issued the following findings in its report: (1) McLaughlin demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that he possesses the requisite good moral character for re-admission to the OBA; (2) McLaughlin established by clear and convincing evidence that he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Oklahoma; and (3) McLaughlin demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning in the law required for admission to practice law; and (4) despite his suspension of more than ten years, McLaughlin should not be required to take and successfully pass the Oklahoma bar examination. The panel unanimously recommended McLaughlin be reinstated.

Analysis

¶ 7 We are vested with a non-delegable, constitutional duty to regulate the practice of law. In Re Reinstatement of Mumina , 2009 OK 76, ¶ 7, 225 P.3d 804, 808. Our primary objectives when weighing an attorney's request for reinstatement are protecting the public welfare and ensuring reinstatement would not adversely affect the Bar. In Re Reinstatement of Page , 2004 OK 49, ¶ 3, 94 P.3d 80, 82 (citing In Re Reinstatement of Cantrell , 1989 OK 165, ¶ 2, 785 P.2d 312, 313 ). Furthermore, factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in the PRT's report are merely advisory and the panel's conclusions are not binding on the Court. In Re Reinstatement of Kerr , 2015 OK 9, ¶ 6, 345 P.3d 1118, 1121. This Court conducts a review of PRT findings by "exercis[ing] independently its original jurisdiction and appl[ying] a de novo standard of review." In Re Reinstatement of Hird , 2008 OK 25, ¶ 3, 184 P.3d 535, 537. The focus of the Court is not on a person's past, but rather on the person's current condition and future consequences of reinstatement. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Albert , 2007 OK 31, ¶ 12, 163 P.3d 527, 533.

¶ 8 An attorney seeking reinstatement after suspension due to personal incapacity must utilize the procedures outlined in RGDP Rule 11. Id. ¶ 13, 163 P.3d at 533. Thus, RGDP Rule 11.5 requires McLaughlin to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) he possesses good moral character entitling him to be admitted to the OBA; 2) he has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension; and 3) he possesses the competency and learning required for admission to the practice of law. Failure to establish any of these essential conditions necessitates denial of reinstatement. Moreover, because McLaughlin's suspension was predicated on his incapacity due to alcoholism, he must present clear and convincing evidence that his "condition is no longer a threat rendering the applicant personally incapable of practicing law." Id. ; see also RGDP Rule 10.11 ("petitioner will be required to supply such supporting proof of personal capacity as may be necessary.")

¶ 9 In evaluating a bid for readmission to the OBA, this Court weighs certain factors, including but not limited to: 1) the applicant's present moral fitness; 2) the applicant's understanding of the wrongfulness and disrepute their unprofessional conduct brought upon the legal profession; 3) the extent of applicant's rehabilitation; 4) the original misconduct's seriousness; 5) the applicant's conduct after resignation; 6) time elapsed since the resignation; 7) the applicant's character, maturity, and experience when suspended; and 8) the applicant's present legal competence. Albert , ¶ 14, 163 P.3d at 534.

¶ 10 Our primary focus in cases involving incapacity stemming from drug or alcohol abuse is the extent of rehabilitation from the incapacity, the conduct subsequent to the suspension and treatment received for the condition, and the time which has elapsed since the suspension. Id . It is essential that the record demonstrate the applicant has, for a significant amount of time, maintained sobriety and refrained from abusing drugs or alcohol; passed random drug and alcohol tests; immersed himself/herself in a 12-step program; sought necessary counseling; and participated in Lawyers Helping Lawyers. Id. ¶ 15, 163 P.3d at 534. Only after an applicant has diligently pursued and maintained his or her sobriety, and has met the other requirements associated with reinstatement, may a petition seeking reinstatement be granted. Id.

¶ 11 Following his Rule 10 suspension, McLaughlin began efforts to achieve sobriety. While he abstained from alcohol for roughly two years, McLaughlin did not initially attend Alcoholics Anonymous, nor did he implement any other 12-step program. As a result of this omission, McLaughlin continuously relapsed. It wasn't until July 18, 2011, that McLaughlin was finally able to stop drinking alcohol. Following his last drink, McLaughlin began working the 12-steps of AA, and has been able to maintain his sobriety for more than six years.

¶ 12 McLaughlin accumulated multiple criminal charges between 2004 and 2011. Each of the criminal matters formed sufficient basis for disciplinary action by this Court; however, our prior order dismissing the Rule 7 case precludes imposition of discipline. Nevertheless, we have considered these criminal acts for purposes of determining whether reinstatement is justified. There can be no doubt that McLaughlin's actions were reprehensible and reflected negatively on the legal profession. Each time McLaughlin sat behind the wheel of his car while under the influence, he put lives of innocent Oklahoma citizens in jeopardy. Additionally, McLaughlin, while intoxicated, sought sexual favors from a prospective client. The totality of these criminal acts would have certainly warranted disbarment. All of these transgressions, however, were directly attributable to...