The Oklahoma Bar Journal February 2024

1) this Court controls and regulates the practice of law in Oklahoma and if we, as a licensing author ity are not advised of criminal actions by the persons we regulate, we cannot fulfil our duties; 2) before admittance to the Oklahoma Bar, criminal histories are reviewed, which indicates the relevance of criminal conduct to the license to practice law; and 3) Attorneys admitted to practice law are officers of the court and judicial system.

The respondent again contacted OBA ethics counsel and inquired about a duty to self-report. He was told (again, I believe, rightly) that he had no duty to self-report because no discipline was imposed in Alabama. The court ultimately suspended the respondent for two years and a day. REEDY AND THE DUTY TO SELF-REPORT At the Professional Responsibility Tribunal hearing, the OBA stip ulated (again, rightly, I believe) that the respondent did not have a duty to report his conviction to the OBA. The court, in examining the facts, stated: Rule 7.2 requires an Oklahoma court clerk to report lawyer convictions, but nowhere in Rule 7 is there express language requiring a lawyer to self-report that criminal charges have been filed or that the lawyer has actu ally been convicted. However, there is existing authority to suggest that a lawyer has an implicit duty to self-report a criminal conviction, at least to the extent the conviction has been previously determined to demonstrate an unfitness to practice law. This implicit duty comes from at least three facets:

this information in the form of a rule soon. In the meantime, any lawyer advising lawyers about discipline should be aware of the importance of this case. Mr. Stevens is OBA ethics counsel. Have an ethics question? It’s a member benefit, and all inquiries are confidential. Contact him at richards@okbar.org or 405-416-7055. Ethics information is also online at www.okbar.org/ec.

ENDNOTES

1. 2023 OK 99. 2. Supra.

The court continued, “To dis cover which types of convictions have been previously determined to demonstrate an unfitness to practice law, a lawyer need only look at our prior disciplinary cases for examples.” The dissent, which would have disbarred the respondent, gave hope for greater clarity by saying, “The majority explained there was no express duty to self-report this conviction to the OBA, but this case provides the opportunity to support such a duty.” This case expresses a new view of the duty to self-report. For the sake of clarity, I hope we may see

FEBRUARY 2024 | 51

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL