State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Fields

489 P.3d 1016

STATE of Oklahoma, EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,

v.Jason Matthew FIELDS, Respondent.

SCBD 6906

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

FILED JUNE 8, 2021

Peter Haddock, Assistant General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.

Jason Matthew Fields, pro se.

Winchester, J.

¶1 Complainant Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed its complaint against Respondent Jason Matthew Fields, pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP).¹ The Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (Trial Panel) heard this disciplinary matter and found Fields violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC)² and the RGDP in receiving attorney's fees that were not approved by the probate court, failing to cooperate with the OBA's investigation into a grievance filed against Fields, and breaching his Diversion Program Agreement. The Trial Panel recommended this Court suspend Fields from the practice of law for two years and one day and require Fields to repay the attorney's fees he received without the probate court's approval. We hold that the OBA established by clear and convincing evidence that Fields violated the ORPC and the RGDP and suspend Fields from the practice of law for one year. We also order Fields to repay the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman the attorney's fees he received and to pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings.

I. FACTS

A. The Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman Grievance

¶2 In 2003, Fields received his license to practice law in Oklahoma. He is currently in good standing with the OBA. In 2011, Barbara Jean Dillman died intestate with two known heirs: her son, Ty Dillman (Dillman), and daughter, Daphne Spencer (Spencer). The probate court originally appointed Dillman as the personal representative for the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman. However, in June 2015, the probate court appointed Spencer as the personal representative because Dillman had to move out of state to care for his father. Fields represented Spencer.

¶3 The decedent's only assets were items of personal property and her house. In October 2015, Fields advised Spencer on how to use a Federal Tax Identification Number for the Estate, open a bank account in the name of the Estate, handle the funds from the sale of the decedent's house, and file certain tax forms on behalf of the Estate. Fields also told Spencer to contact him after the closing on the sale of the house to hire a certified public accountant to review the tax documents.

¶4 In December 2015, Spencer sold the decedent's house with the probate court's permission. Fields was not present for the closing, but the closing company issued a check for $6,401.15 to Fields for his attorney's fees. Fields did not return the funds to the Estate nor did he obtain court approval for his attorney's fees. Fields also did not place the funds in an Interest On Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA); he did not even maintain an IOLTA account.

¶5 The closing company issued Spencer a check for $52,909.35, which was the net sale proceeds after payment of all fees and expenses. Spencer did not notify Dillman that she sold the decedent's house and did not follow Fields's instructions regarding the handling of the funds from the sale of the real property. Instead, Spencer spent the proceeds of the sale, misappropriating the proceeds to the detriment of the other heir. Further, neither Fields nor Spencer submitted a final accounting to the probate court, and the probate matter remains pending.

¶6 On April 3, 2017, Dillman submitted a grievance to the OBA, alleging Fields committed professional misconduct in the handling of the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman.

B. Failure to Cooperate with the OBA's Investigation and Breach of Diversion Program Agreement

¶7 Fields did not respond to Dillman's grievance, although the OBA requested a response on two separate occasions and gave Fields an additional five working days to submit one. In August 2017, the OBA began a formal investigation and again requested on two separate occasions that Fields respond to the grievance. Fields did not submit a response.

¶8 An OBA investigator called Fields on two separate occasions and left messages requesting that Fields return his call. Fields did not respond to those calls. The OBA then obtained a Subpoena Duces Tecum for the deposition of Fields, along with a request for him to produce bank records and the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman file. In February 2018, Fields appeared at the deposition, produced some of the requested documents, and submitted a written response to the grievance. At the conclusion of the deposition, the OBA requested additional documentation from Fields, which he agreed to provide. The OBA investigator attempted to follow up with Fields multiple times regarding the status of the additional documents. In June 2018, Fields sent the OBA the additional documents, four months after the OBA's request.

¶9 In September 2018, the OBA presented Fields's case to the Professional Responsibility Commission, and the Commission referred Fields to the Attorney Diversion Program for a one-year probation pursuant to RGDP Rule 5.1.³ In October 2018, Fields and the OBA entered into a Diversion Program Agreement, which mandated that Fields attend certain classes and pay the costs associated with the program. It also required Fields to reimburse the OBA for the cost of his deposition. Fields failed to abide by any of the terms of the agreement. He also did not keep in contact with the program monitors or respond to emails, letters, or calls from the OBA.

¶10 On March 20, 2020, the OBA filed a formal Complaint against Fields setting forth one count of professional misconduct for the handling of the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman and one count of professional misconduct for failure to cooperate in the OBA's investigation and breach of the Diversion Program Agreement.

¶11 The OBA properly served Fields with notice of the Complaint. Fields did not file an answer, and on June 3, 2020, the OBA filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted under RGDP Rule 6.4. Fields did not respond to the motion. On June 9, 2020, the Trial Panel held a hearing, and Fields did not appear. The Trial Panel deemed the allegations in the Complaint admitted. The Trial Panel proceeded to hear evidence to recommend what discipline to impose on Fields. The Trial Panel found by clear and convincing evidence that Fields violated ORPC Rules 1.15,⁴ 8.1(b),⁵ 8.4(a) and (d),⁶ as well as a violation of RGDP Rules 1.3⁷ and 5.2.⁸ The Trial Panel recommended that this Court suspend Fields for two years and one day and require him to repay the Estate of Barbara Jean Dillman the attorney's fees he received without the probate court's approval.

C. Mitigation Evidence

¶12 This Court may consider mitigating circumstances in evaluating both the attorney's conduct and assessing the appropriate discipline. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Mayes , 2003 OK 23, ¶ 26, 66 P.3d 398, 408. Fields has practiced law for over 17 years and has no prior disciplinary history. Beyond this factor, there are very few mitigating circumstances to evaluate.

¶13 During the investigation, Fields admitted that he suffered from anxiety such that he could not deal with confrontation in practice and during the OBA's investigation. Yet Fields offered no supporting documentation of an anxiety diagnosis. See State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Schraeder , 2002 OK 51, ¶ 28, 51 P.3d 570, 579 (holding a causal relationship must exist between the medical condition and the professional misconduct when a mental disorder is tendered as a mitigation factor).

¶14 Further, Fields disclosed that it was common practice in his community to receive attorney's fees in a probate matter without court approval and the law firms he worked for have done it this way. Fields stated he would return the money to the Estate but that he did not think what he did was wrong. Fields showed a lack of willingness to accept responsibility and remorse for his misconduct.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶15 In disciplinary proceedings, this Court acts as a licensing court in the exercise of our exclusive jurisdiction. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Garrett , 2005 OK 91, ¶ 3, 127 P.3d 600, 602. Our review of the evidence is de novo in determining if the OBA proved its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. The Trial Panel's recommendations are neither binding nor persuasive. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Anderson , 2005 OK 9, ¶ 15, 109 P.3d 326, 330. This Court's responsibility is not to punish an attorney, but to assess the continued fitness to practice law and to safeguard the interests of the public, the courts, and the legal profession. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Wilburn , 2006 OK 50, ¶ 3, 142 P.3d 420, 422.

III. DISCUSSION

¶16 The OBA charged Fields with one count of mishandling estate funds in violation of ORPC Rule 1.15 —which requires attorneys to safeguard the property of clients or third parties. This Court employs three different culpability standards in evaluating the mishandling of funds: (1) commingling,⁹ (2) simple conversion,¹⁰ and (3) misappropriation, i.e., "theft by conversion or otherwise."¹¹ The degree of culpability ascends from the first to the last.

State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Combs , 2007 OK 65, ¶ 13, 175 P.3d 340, 346.

¶17 Oklahoma law requires attorneys to exercise diligence to ensure fees are not removed from an estate without court approval. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Mansfield , 2015 OK 22, ¶ 17, 350 P.3d 108, 114. We have previously held that an attorney's transfer of funds from an estate to pay fees without court approval amounted to commingling and simple conversion. Id. ¶ 32, 350 P.3d at 119 ; State ex. rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Besly , 2006 OK 18, ¶ 48, 136 P.3d 590, 606 (holding an attorney commingled estate funds with his own when he paid himself under the auspices of what he considered due to him...