State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Steger , 433 P.2d 225 ( 1966 )

HODGES, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with the opinion of the majority except that I feel that the punishment imposed was too severe considering all the facts and circumstances of this case.

The majority recognized that the Respondent was undergoing serious financial difficulties during the period involved in these two counts. These difficulties arose in large measure because the Respondent was overly generous with his clients and his family. The affidavits introduced in behalf of the Respondent establish that, through the help of relatives and friends, his financial affairs are now in order.

The record shows'that the funds zvere not used by the Respondent out of any desire for personal gain or with a deliberate premeditation to do wrong. In each instance the clients of the Respondent promptly received their just distribution. Although the Respondent did withhold funds from an attorney, two doctors and a hospital in direct violation of the canons of professional ethics, these funds were subsequently paid and the complainants have now indicated that they do not wish to press the matter further and that they believe the Respondent’s future conduct will be above reproach. One of the original complainants, a doctor, now makes the following plea in the Respondent’s behalf:

“I feel sure that he sees the error of his ways and believe, that if he is given the opportunity * * * that his conduct would be above reproach.

“I would support him in any way possible * * * He is worth salvaging and I am willing to appear in his behalf either on paper, recording or in person to help him.”

The good character and reputation of the Respondent has been exemplified by his professional conduct in the practice of law for over thirty years. There is no evidence of misconduct by the Respondent throughout his lengthy practice other than the two instances charged, which occurred under financial stress. It is apparent that the Respondent possesses a good reputation for honesty, and trustworthiness in his community. Many responsible persons in the community have attested to his legal competency, devotion to his profession and to his family, and his good name in the community. He has devoted much time and energy to provide legal assistance and advice, without hope of pecuniary remuneration, to literally hundreds of indigent clients over the years. The Respondent’s present attitude is reflected by the following statement contained in his supplemental response :

“I am deeply aware that this restitution does not exonerate me, but I will henceforth make additional restitution to my Bar by exemplary conduct and diligence in all of my affairs.”

I do not wish to minimize the seriousness of the Respondent’s misconduct. His failure to account promptly for the funds intrusted to his care is a direct violation of the standards of professional conduct, and should not be condoned or excused by this Court. However, in view of his past professional conduct, good character and reputation for over thirty years, together with evidences of his present attitude for exemplary conduct in the future, I deem a public censure and reprimand by his court to be the appropriate disciplinary action. In my opinion this punishment would be more in accordance with even justice and the interest of the public.