text:
    The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. M. Ashley ALBRIGHT, Respondent.
    No. 03PDJ069.
    Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
    Oct. 29, 2003.

      The Presiding Disciplinary Judge, WILLIAM R. LUCERO, and Hearing Board Members MARY DEGANHART and ANDREW A. SALIMAN, both members of the bar, issue the following opinion. MARY DEGANHART participated via telephone.
   REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED

I. BACKGROUND

The People filed a Complaint in this matter on September 23, 2003. The Citation and Complaint were sent via certified mail to M. Ashley Albright, Respondent (“Albright” or “Respondent”) at her last known business and home addresses. The People filed a Proof of Service of Citation and Complaint on October 9, 2003. The Proof of Service shows that the Citation and the Complaint were sent both to Albright’s registered business and home addresses. The envelopes sent to Albright were returned on September 30, 2003 as “attempted, not known” and “unknown left no address”. Albright did not file an answer to the complaint or otherwise participate in these proceedings.

On November 20, 2003, the People filed a motion for default. Albright did not respond. On December 19, 2003, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“PDJ”) entered an order of default on the complaint. All factual allegations set forth in the Complaint were deemed admitted and all rule violations set forth in the Complaint were deemed proven pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) and are therefore established by clear and convincing evidence. E.g. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo.1987). The complaint is attached as Exhibit A.

A Sanctions Hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) was held on March 22, 2004 before the Hearing Board. Gregory G. Sapakoff, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, represented the People of the State of Colorado (“People” or “Complainant”). Albright did not appear either in person or by counsel.

In approximately December 1998, Denise Klimas and Duane' K. McDermond (“Klimas and McDermond”) entered into a standard real estate contract to purchase Albright’s house. The contract included an inspection contingency. The contract further provided for a process by which the parties could attempt to resolve issues raised as a result of the inspection. If problems identified through the inspection were not resolved by agreement of both parties within a specified period of time, the contract would lapse and would no longer be enforceable.

Klimas and McDermond had the property inspected and notified Albright of unsatisfactory conditions in a timely matter. Although Albright made proposals to attempt to rectify the unsatisfactory conditions, the parties could not reach an agreement to resolve the issues identified in the inspection and, .therefore, the closing did not take place. The unsatisfactory conditions as identified through the inspection were not resolved within the period of time provided in the contract and the contract lapsed by its own terms.

In executing the contract, Klimas and McDermond paid an earnest money deposit of $4,000.00, which was held in escrow by the listing broker. Pursuant to the express terms of the contract, Klimas and MeDer-mond were entitled to a refund of their earnest money deposit if the closing did not take place because of an uncorrected problem identified during the inspection.

Klimas and McDermond demanded that Albright refund their earnest money deposit after the closing did not take place. Albright refused to refund the earnest money deposit, contending that Klimas and McDermond had breached- their contract to purchase Al-bright’s property.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Hearing Board considered the People’s argument, the facts established by the entry of default, and the exhibits admitted, and made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Albright has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of the Colorado Supreme Court on January 10, 1985, and is registered upon the official records of" the Supreme Court, registration number 14467. Albright is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).

The facts established by the entry of default prove the following misconduct:

Colo. RPC 3.1

Bringing or Defending a Proceeding and Asserting Issues Therein that were Frivolous

Klimas and McDermond filed suit against Albright in small claims court in Denver County, seeking recovery of their earnest money deposit. Albright later caused the case to be removed to county court, at which time Klimas and McDermond retained James Black, Esq., to represent them in the matter. In responding to the allegations' in the civil action, Albright asserted counterclaims against Klimas arid McDermond, as well as a third-party claim against Vicki Mantón (“Mantón”), who- was Klimas’ and McDer-mond’s broker.

The civil action went to trial to the court beginning on April 22, 1999. At the conclusion of the trial, the court ruled in favor of Klimas and McDermond on their claim against Albright and against Albright on all of her counterclaims. In addition, the court awarded to Klimas and McDermond their reasonable attorney fees incurred in pursuing the action, pursuant to a provision in the real estate contract. The court also found in favor of Mantón on Albright’s third-party claim against Mantón. The court further found that Albright’s claim against Mantón was substantially groundless and frivolous and, therefore, awarded attorney fees in favor of Mantón and against Albright, pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 13-17-102. Following further proceedings in the county court, Albright was ordered to pay Mantón the sum of approximately $8,300.00.

Albright appealed the trial court’s orders to the Denver District Court. On September 28,1999, the District Court issued an opinion, order and judgment affirming the judgment of the county court. The Court stated: “This appeal is also frivolous; however, sufficient attorney fees have already been awarded against the appellant.”

After receiving the district court’s ruling, Albright filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Colorado Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the ease for review and, following briefing by the parties, issued an opinion in November 2000, affirming the judgment of the district court upholding the county court’s judgment. Pursuant to a motion filed by Klimas and McDermond, the Supreme Court also remanded the case to the trial court to determine if Klimas and McDermond were entitled to additional attorney fees on appeal pursuant to the real estate contract. On remand, additional fees were awarded to Klimas and McDermond as further damages under the contract.

The contractual attorney fees awarded to Klimas and McDermond at the conclusion of the initial trial court proceedings were satisfied from proceeds of a bond Albright was required to post at the time of her appeal to the district court. No money has since been paid toward satisfaction of the judgment for additional fees incurred on appeal.

Albright’s defense of the claims asserted by Klimas and McDermond was not supported by any law or facts and, therefore, was frivolous. Albright did not articulate.a good faith argument-for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law with respect to that claim. Albright also asserted claims against Klimas and McDermond, and against Mantón, which were supported neither by law nor fact.

Albright’s attempts to appeal the rulings entered against her in the trial court were also frivolous and did not include good faith arguments for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Albright’s actions in pursuing frivolous claims, defenses, and appeals caused significant harm to Klimas and McDermond and to Mantón, including substantial attorney fees incurred in defending the frivolous claims and issues Albright asserted.

The Hearing Board finds the forgoing conduct violates Colo. RPC 3.1.

Colo. RPC 3.4(c)

Knowingly Failing to Comply with Obligations Under the Rules of a Tribunal

At least a portion of the attorney fees assessed against Albright were assessed by Denver County Court as a sanction, pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-17-102, for asserting a groundless and frivolous claim. Albright has known of the court’s order of judgment requiring her to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by Mantón since 1999. Al-bright also has known since November 2000, that all of her appellate rights with respect to that order have been exhausted. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Albright has knowingly failed to comply with her obligations by failing to pay the ordered sanctions.

The Hearing Board finds the forgoing conduct violates Colo. RPC 3.4(c).

Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1)

Knowingly Making False Statements of Fact to a Tribunal

Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(4)

Knowingly Offering Evidence a Lawyer Knows to be False

Colo. RPC 8.4(c)

Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation

On or about February 9, 2001, Al-bright filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado as well as a statement of financial affairs and various schedules. On or about July 19, 2001, Albright converted her Chapter 13 case to a case under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. Accordingly, she sought a discharge of all of her debts, including the debts flowing from the orders entered by the Denver County Court as described above. In both the Chapter 13 and 7 bankruptcy petitions, she filed substantially the same statements of financial affairs and schedules.

On October 25, 2001, Klimas and McDer-mond and Mantón filed adversary proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court challenging Albright’s attempt to discharge attorney fees they were awarded. The trial in the adversary proceedings was conducted before the Honorable Bruce Campbell on August 19 and 20, 2002, November 18, 19, and 26, 2002, and on March 14, 2003. The evidence introduced during these proceedings established numerous omissions and misrepresentations in the documents that Albright filed with the court. Based upon the evidence, Judge Campbell entered an order denying the discharge of Albright’s debts to Klimas and McDermond, and to Mantón.

In her statement of financial affairs filed in the bankruptcy court, Albright represented that she did not have a safe deposit box. In fact, she did. This was a knowing misrepresentation or a knowing misrepresentation by omission.

Albright also filed a statement of financial affairs with the bankruptcy court that called for disclosure of financial institutions to which Albright issued financial statements within two years prior to the bankruptcy. In completing and submitting this form, Al-bright failed to disclose she had given a financial statement to Norwest Bank in April of 1999 that listed significant assets and liabilities that were not disclosed in the bankruptcy proceedings. She knew that she had given a financial statement to Norwest Bank in April 1999. Her failure to disclose the financial statement in her statement of financial affairs was a knowing misrepresentation or a knowing misrepresentation by omission.

With respect to her income on the statement of financial affairs, Albright failed to disclose all the income she received during the two years preceding the bankruptcy. Al-bright was aware that she had received monthly rent payments from a tenant who leased a basement apartment in her home throughout the two-year period before filing bankruptcy, yet she did not disclose this information. Albright’s failure to list the income received from such rent payments was a knowing misrepresentation or a knowing misrepresentation by omission in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings.

The statement of financial affairs submitted in connection with her bankruptcy also required Albright to disclose any businesses in which she owned five percent or more during the two years immediately preceding the bankruptcy case. Albright listed none, when she actually owned 100% of a limited liability company (LLC). The LLC held title to property that cost more than $60,000.00 originally and was worth at least that amount during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings.

For many years immediately preceding the filing of the bankruptcy, Albright also maintained a bank account in the name of the LLC into which she deposited approximately $700.00 per month through direct deposits from her paycheck. After servicing mortgage debt on the LLC’s undeveloped but subdivided realty, the LLC made distributions over the two years immediately preceding the bankruptcy of approximately $150.00 per month to Albright. Albright neither disclosed the bank account nor the payments therefrom in any schedule she submitted in her statement of financial affairs filed with the bankruptcy court.

Albright knew of her ownership interest in the LLC and of the nature of property owned by the LLC at the time she completed and submitted her statement of financial affairs. Through her failure to disclose her ownership interest in the LLC and the distributions she received therefrom, Albright made a knowing misrepresentation or a knowing misrepresentation by omission in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Hearing Board finds the forgoing conduct violates Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(4), and 8.4(c).

Colo. RPC 8.4(a)

Attempted Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct

Prior to the trial in the adversary proceedings in the bankruptcy court, Al-bright became aware that the tenant who leased Albright’s basement apartment would be called to testify at the time of trial. Prior to the date the tenant was to testify, Albright contacted the tenant and tried to persuade him not to mention $350.00 of accrued but unpaid rent because Albright had not listed the rent on her bankruptcy schedules.

Albright knew that such evidence, if presented, would be false and would constitute an act of dishonesty or deceit. Through her conduct, Albright attempted to submit false evidence to a tribunal and to perpetrate a fraud upon the bankruptcy court. At the trial, in spite of Albright’s efforts to the contrary, the tenant testified honestly and disclosed Albright’s attempt to persuade him to testify falsely.

The Hearing Board finds the forgoing conduct violates Colo. RPC 8.4(a).

III. SANCTIONS BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The following ABA Standards apply. Pursuant to ABA Standards § 6.21, “[disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious -interference with a legal proceeding.”

ABA Standards § 6.11 also provide that “[disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.”

Finally, under ABA Standards § 6.22, “Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.”

The Hearing Board considered the following factors in determining the issue of sanctions:

DUTY: In the instant case, Albright violated duties owed as an officer of the court and legal duties to act with honesty and integrity. The findings establish that Al-bright acted knowingly in violating these duties as shown - by the following facts:
• Pursuing frivolous claims and defenses;
• Failing to comply with a court order; and,
• Engaging in dishonest conduct in the bankruptcy proceedings.
MENTAL STATE: There is no evidence to suggest a mental or physical disability that would, perhaps, explain Albright’s conduct. In violating a succession of court orders starting with the Denver County Court and terminating with the Colorado Supreme Court, Albright was aware of her conduct and acted with the conscious object to avoid paying sanctions she was ordered to pay. The Hearing Board specifically finds that she acted with intent and knowledge of the consequences of her actions.
The Hearing Panel specifically finds that Albright knowingly engaged in an escalating course of conduct starting before April 1999 and continuing until at least March of 2003 that demonstrated her abuse of the legal system and the public. Her conscious objective during this course of conduct was to avoid paying the earnest money due to Klimas and McDermond and the sanctions the court had ordered. She was aware that the defense and claims she brought against Klimas, McDermond, and Mantón were groundless and frivolous. Nevertheless, she continued to pursue them. While there may be some question as to whether Albright’s behavior was appropriate immediately after Klimas and McDermond demanded that she return their earnest money, such was not the case by the time Klimas and McDermond brought suit against her. By that time, Albright’s conduct demonstrated a firm resolve to pay neither judgment nor sanctions. Ultimately, she intentionally misled the Bankruptcy Court, hid material information that should have been included in her filings, and attempted to suborn perjury in an apparent attempt to avoid paying a lawful-debt.
HARM: Albright caused significant harm
• To Klimas, McDermond, and Mantón by forcing them to defend her frivolous claims and defenses and generating substantial attorneys fees as a result;
• To 'Klimas, McDermond, and Mantón by fraudulently and dishonestly thwarting their legitimate attempts to collect their judgments; and
• To the legal system by unnecessarily multiplying and expanding the course of proceedings within the state court system and in the Federal Bankruptcy Court.
MITIGATION: Albright has not appeared to present evidence of any factors in mitigation. Thus, the Hearing Board must rely solely on the matters in the record the People have presented. The only factor in mitigation applicable here is the absence of a prior disciplinary record. ABA Standards § 9.32(a).
AGGRAVATION: In aggravation, Al-bright’s conduct demonstrates:
• She acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. ABA Standards § 9.22(b)
• She engaged in a pattern of misconduct by continuing to deny her liability while escalating the dispute to higher and higher levels of frivolous litigation. Id. at 9.22(c)(d) and People v. Rudman, 948 P.2d 1022, 1026 (Colo.1997).
• She committed multiple offenses by submitting false and misleading documents to the Bankruptcy Court and attempting to suborn perjury. Id. at 9.22(d).
• She has failed to cooperate or participate in good faith in these disciplinary proceedings. Id. at 9.22(e).
• She has substantial experience in the practice of law. Id. at 9.22(i).

Considering-the applicable factors in mitigation and aggravation, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Albright’s misconduct pleaded and proved in Claims 3 and 4. See In re Cardwell, 50 P.3d 897, 901 (Colo.2002)(disbarment generally appropriate when lawyer, with the intent to deceive, makes false statement, submits false -document, or improperly withholds material information from court, causing serious or potentially serious injury to party, or significant or potentially significant adverse effect on legal proceeding).

As to conduct in Claims 1 and' 2, the Hearing Board determines that suspension for 1 year and a day is the appropriate sanction. See People v. Huntzinger, 967 P.2d 160, 162 (Colo.1998) and People v. Hanks, 967 P.2d 144, 145, 146 (Colo.1998). Based upon the Hearing Board’s determination that disbarment is the appropriate sanction, the sanction for Claims 1 and 2 are subsumed in Claims 3 and 4.

IV. ORDER

It is therefore ORDERED:

• M. Ashley Albright, attorney registration 14467, is DISBARRED from the practice of law in the State of Colorado effective thirty — one days from the date of this Order and her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in the state.

Albright is Ordered to comply with all orders and to satisfy all judgments entered against her in the Denver County Court, in the litigation with Klimas, McDermond and Mantón, as a condition to any readmission to the practice of law in this state.

■ Albright is Ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings; the People shall submit a Statement of Costs within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. Albright shall have ten (10) days thereafter to submit a response thereto.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Clyde E. HOOK, Respondent.
    No. 03PDJ076.
    Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
    April 30, 2004.

      Opinion by the Hearing Board, consisting of Presiding Officer JOHN M. LEBSACK and Hearing Board Members, PAUL WILLUMSTAD and ROBERT A. MILLMAN, both members of the Bar. FREDRICK J. KRAUS, Assistant Regulation Counsel, represented the People of the State of Colorado (the “People”). CRAIG L. TRUMAN represented the respondent, CLYDE E. HOOK (“Hook”), who was also present.
   OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FOR THREE-YEARS, ALL STAYED PENDING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF PROBATION WITH CONDITIONS

On October 1, 2003, the People filed a Complaint against Hook. On October 21, 2003, Hook filed his Answer. On November 10, 2003, the People filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Hook did not contest that motion. On December 13, 2003, the Presiding Officer entered judgment on the pleadings on respondent’s violation of Colo. R.P.C. 8.4(b), constituting grounds for discipline as set forth in Claims I, II, and III of the original complaint. A sanctions hearing was held on March 19,2004.

The People and Hook jointly stipulated into evidence Exhibits 1-11,12(A)-(C), 13(A)-(B), and 14. The Hearing Board heard testimony from the People’s witnesses, Michael H. Gendel, M.D., and John DeJohn. Hook testified on his own behalf. The Hearing Board considered all admissions in the pleadings, the Order granting judgment on the pleadings, the exhibits, and the testimony of the witnesses, and made the following findings of fact, which were established by clear and convincing evidence.

I.FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Clyde Edward Hook has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of the Colorado Supreme Court on October 9, 1979, and is registered upon the official records of the Supreme Court, Attorney registration no. 09773. Hook maintained a law practice in Colorado during all times relevant to the events in question.
2. On the evening of April 7, 2002, Hook arrived at a neighborhood bar, known as the Pub on Pearl, in a highly intoxicated condition. The bar is located in a residential area of Denver. Upon entering the bar, Hook was refused service after the waitress and the bartender determined that he was too intoxicated. After being offered a non-alcoholic beverage, the respondent went to the back poolroom in the bar for a short time. He returned and began harassing customers. The bartender requested that Hook leave the bar. After a brief verbal exchange, he did.
3. Later in the evening, Hook returned to the bar. He was eventually spotted by the bartender and again was asked to leave. A longer verbal exchange occurred, but Hook left the fear for a second time.
4. Sometime later, Hook returned to the Pub on Pearl looking for his coat. The bartender did not want Hook in the bar, and immediately confronted him, requesting that he leave. After a pointed verbal exchange where profanities were used, Hook left the bar.
5. Hook walked home from the bar, went into his basement, retrieved his loaded .357 revolver from a desk, and drove back to the Pub on Pearl. By the time Hook returned, the bar had closed. The bartender and the waitress were in the front area of the bar cleaning. Hook tapped on the window next to the front door of the bar, attempting to gain the attention of the bartender and the waitress, who he could clearly see. Although the bartender and the waitress saw Hook at the front door, they chose to ignore him.
6. Hook then withdrew his B57 revolver and fired a bullet into the front door. Hook could see the occupants moving in the bar and then fired two of three additional shots into the lock in the front door of the bar. Bullet fragments entered the bar and ricocheted around the inside of the bar. The bartender and waitress quickly retreated to the rear of the bar and called police. After trying the front door to see if he could gain entrance, Hook left the scene when the door would not open. Police arrived and photographed the scene. Police could not apprehend Hook at that time, since neither the bartender nor the waitress knew Hook’s name or where he lived.
7. The bartender was traumatized by the event and continues to have fears as a result of Hook’s misconduct.
8. Hook did not turn himself in and did not inquire as to the injuries he may have caused his victims. After the incident, he went home, put the gun away, told no one, and stayed away from the Pub on Pearl for fear that he would be recognized by patrons or employees.
9. On August 30, 2002, the waitress was in another bar close to the Pub on Pearl. She saw Hook and recognized him as the person who shot into the Pub on Pearl. She called the police. On September 4, 2002, Hook was arrested. He eventually entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor crimes of carrying a concealed weapon (C.R.S. § 18-12-105) and reckless endangerment (C.R.S. § 18-3-208) in the County Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. As a result of those convictions, he was sentenced to and completed probation.
10. Claims II and III of the People’s Complaint allege that Hook’s mis-con-duct also meets the elements for the felony crimes of illegal discharge of a firearm (C.R.S. § 18-12-107.5(1)) and' menacing with a deadly weapon (C.R.S. § 18-3-206) (the crime becomes a felony when a deadly weapon is used). This was admitted in Hook’s answer and judgment on the pleadings was granted as to these counts.
11. At all times material to this case, Hook suffered from alcoholism. Prior to the incident of April 7, 2002 Hook did not seek treatment for this condition. Hook’s alcoholism was principally responsible for the incident of April 7, 2002 and his subsequent failure to take remedial measures. Since the time of his arrest, September 4, 2002, Hook has stopped drinking alcohol. He has undergone the intensive outpatient treatment program for alcohol dependence at Exempla West Pines Hospital. He has maintained monitored, random urinana-lysis and other tests to verify his sobriety. After graduation from the intensive outpatient treatment program, Hook continued in the aftercare program at Exempla West Pines, alternating weekly sessions with a program under the Colorado Lawyers Assistance Program. Hook successfully completed the anger management group therapy as required by the terms of his probation in the underlying criminal case. Hook attends five to six Alcoholics Anonymous meetings per week, has a sponsor, and is working on the 12-Step Program. He has also been undergoing weekly individual therapy sessions with Dr. Spencer Friedman, a psychologist for issues including anger management. Hook continues to see his primary care physician and psychiatrist to assure that his medications are appropriate. Additionally, Hook has volunteered work at the Denver Rescue Mission as a kitchen worker since January 2003, and was awarded the Volunteer of the Month by that institution in February 2004. Hook has also done volunteer work for both the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries as a regular laborer.
12. Dr. Michael H. Gendel performed an independent psychiatric evaluation at the request of the People. He rendered a diagnosis that Hook was alcohol dependent in sustained remission; that he suffered from major depression, moderate severity, in remission; and that he suffered from anxiety disorder NOS with features of generalized anxiety and panic anxiety. He further testified that Hook suffers from problems managing anger. Hook engages in passive-aggressive behavior. The anger problems most clearly manifest themselves when Hook uses alcohol. Dr. Gendel opined that the incident probably would not have occurred were it not for the fact that Hook was intoxicated, but Hook knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the incident. Dr. Gendel made several recommendations for further treatment and monitoring of Hook’s long-standing alcohol dependence problems. The Board finds those recommendations are reasonable and adopts them for the period of monitoring.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

The Hearing Board is very concerned with the serious nature of the misconduct, the discharge of a deadly weapon in a public place, and the potential for serious injury or death to two persons. Only by chance was that potential avoided. The board does not mean to diminish the serious nature of the act, but needs to impose an appropriate sanction for Hook in the context of lawyer discipline. The criminal law system has already addressed the criminal behavior. This proceeding is to determine the appropriate sanction for Hook’s ability to practice law. The board has determined that the goals of lawyer discipline would best be served by imposing a set of quite stringent conditions of probation, but that no period of served suspension is warranted provided Hook complies with all the conditions of probation. The conditions are crafted to protect the public by assuring, to the greatest extent possible, that Hook will maintain sobriety.

Hook violated Colo. R.P.C. 8.4(b) by committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, and C.R.C.P. § 251.5 by committing an act which violates the criminal laws of this State or any other state. Hook was convicted of the misdemeanor crimes of carrying a concealed weapon (C.R.S. § 18-12-105) and reckless endangerment (C.R.S. § 18-3-208). As determined by the order for judgment on the pleadings, his actions constituted the felony crimes of illegal discharge of a fwearm (C.R.S. § 18-12-107.5(1)) and menacing (G.R.S. § 18-3-206) (the crime becomes a felony when a deadly weapon is used). The Board is aware for the purpose of imposing sanctions, that Hook’s conduct may be considered felonious although he was not convicted of these crimes. See People v. Brailsford, 933 P.2d 592 (Colo.1997). The Board concludes that it is not determinative, in evaluating the appropriate sanction under these circumstances, whether Hook’s misconduct constituted felonies.

The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (“ABA Standards ”) are used as guidance to determine the suitable sanction for Hook’s misconduct. ABA Standard 1.1 gives this statement of the purpose of sanctions:

The purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public and the administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or are unlikely properly to discharge their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession.

The comment to this standard points out that punishment is not the goal of sanctions in lawyer discipline cases:

While courts express their views on the purpose of lawyer sanctions somewhat differently, an examination of reported eases reveals surprising accord as to the basic purpose of discipline. As identified by the courts, the primary purpose is to protect the public. Second, the courts cite the need to protect the integrity of the -legal system, and to ensure the administration of justice. Another purpose is to deter further unethical conduct and, where appropriate, to rehabilitate the lawyer. A final purpose of imposing sanctions is to educate other lawyers and the public, thereby deterring unethical behavior among all members of the profession. As the courts have noted, while sanctions imposed on a lawyer obviously have a punitive aspect, nonetheless, it is not the purpose to impose such sanctions for punishment. [Emphasis added]

ABA Standard 3.0 requires an analysis of the lawyer’s misconduct, including the duty the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental state, and the actual or potential injury caused. Hook intentionally engaged in criminal conduct that caused psychic traumatic injury to the bartender and waitress. His misconduct had the potential of causing serious physical injury or death. It is also significant that Hook was an alcoholic and his misconduct occurred while he was intoxicated.

The applicable ASA. Standard is 5.12. It states: “Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice.” This is the presumptive level of discipline, and the Board may increase or decrease this presumed sanction based on the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

ABA Standard § 9.2 outlines the factors in aggravation. The factors in aggravation that are present include a dishonest or selfish motive, in that after shooting into the bar, Hook made a conscious decision to hide the gun and to avoid the bar so those present at the bar could not identify Hook, id at 9.22(b); and substantial experience in the practice of law, id at 9.22(i). The Board does not place great weight on the relevance of any of the listed aggravating factors to the circumstances of this case.

ABA Standards § 9.3 outline factors in mitigation. In mitigation, there is an absence of a prior disciplinary record, id at 9.32(a); full and free disclosure to the disciplinary authorities and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, id at 9.32(e); imposition of other penalties and sanctions, consisting of a criminal sentence, id at 9.32(k); and mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse when: (1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical dependency or mental disability; (2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct; (3) the respondent’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is unlikely, id at 9.32(f)

The Board finds that the last of these mitigating factors, chemical dependency, is the most important factor to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction. In this regard, the Board notes this comment to ABA Standards § 9.3:

Issues of physical and mental disability or chemical dependency offered as mitigating factors in disciplinary proceedings require careful analysis. Direct causation between the disability or chemical dependency and the offense must be established. If the offense is proven to be attributable solely to a disability or chemical dependency, it should be given the greatest weight. If it is principally responsible for the offense, it should be given very great weight; and if it is a substantial contributing cause of the offense, it should be given great weight. In all other cases in which the disability or chemical dependency is considered as mitigating, it should be given little weight. A showing of rehabilitation from chemical dependency may be considered but should not, in and of itself, be a justification for a recommendation for discipline less than that which would have been imposed upon an attorney in similar circumstances where a chemical dependency was not present.

Because the Board finds that Hook’s alcoholism was principally responsible for his misconduct, the Board places very great weight on that mitigating factor. Therefore the Board declines to follow the presumptive discipline of a served suspension (that is, without a stay) and decides to order a stayed suspension of three years pending a three-year probation with conditions designed to assure Hook’s continued sobriety. The Board concludes that provided Hook remains sober, he is not a threat to the public. Protection of the public, as noted, is the primary goal of lawyer discipline. The secondary goals, such as deterring unethical conduct and educating other lawyers, would not be served in this case by an actual served suspension. The paramount objective of the sanction in this case is to protect the public by assuring that Hook’s rehabilitation from alcoholism is closely monitored.

The Colorado Supreme Court has stated: “All lawyers must, of course, obey the law, but we consider it particularly serious when a lawyer engages in criminal conduct that involves the knowing infliction of harm on another person or persons.... ” People v. Martin, 897 P.2d 802, 804 (Colo.1995). In People v. Brailsford, 933 P.2d 592 (Colo.1997), the respondent was convicted ofi third degree sexual assault on his wife, which warranted suspension for one year and one day. In In re Hickox, 57 P.3d 403, 405 (Colo.2002), the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months after having grabbed his estranged wife by her wrist and then twisting her arm behind her back while pushing her up the stairs. The wife stumbled and fell. In the case In re Van Buskirk, 981 P.2d 607 (Colo.1999), the respondent received a three-year suspension for burglary and third degree assault. In People v. McCaffrey, 925 P.2d 269 (Colo.1996), the respondent was suspended for three years after having fired a shotgun in a residential area. The respondent was also found to have abandoned clients. In People v. Littlefield, 893 P.2d 773 (Colo.1995), the respondent pointed a shotgun at his landlord and the landlord’s companion and told them to leave. They got in their car and drove away. Upon their leaving, the respondent fired two shotgun rounds, one of which hit the rear of the landlord’s vehicle. Mr. Littlefield was disbarred.

It is significant to note, however, that none of these cases involved misconduct attributable principally to chemical dependency.

The disability or chemical dependence was principally responsible for the offenses committed by Hook. This requires the panel to apply very great weight to the mitigating factor of chemical dependency. Given the mitigating factor presented, the appropriate sanction is a three year suspension, with strict conditions of probation for a period of three years. All of the suspension should be stayed provided Mr. Hook satisfactorily complies with all the conditions of probation.

III. ORDER

1. Clyde Edward Hook is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. All three years are stayed pending the successful completion of a three year period of probation, subject to the following conditions:

A. Hook shall not engage in any conduct that results in the imposition of any form of discipline as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.6 or 251.7, an order of immediate suspension as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.8, 251.8.5, or 251.8.6, for three years from the date of this order. Hook shall also comply with all local, state and federal criminal laws for three years from the date of this order.
B. Hook shall comply with all terms and conditions of the sentence imposed in People v. Clyde Edward Hook, court case no. 02F03665-12, County Court City and County of Denver.
C. Hook shall abstain from the use of any alcohol or any non-prescribed controlled substance during the three-year period of probation.
D. Hook will submit to full screen random urinalysis testing one time per week for a period of one year after the effective date of this order. One time per month Hook shall submit to a urine test known as ethylglucuronide, the other monthly tests shall be standard tests. Thereafter, during the second and third years of the probation Hook shall submit to random urine tests two times per month, with one of the tests being the ethylglucu-ronide test. For urinalysis testing, the respondent shall provide a sufficient urine sample so that a portion may be tested immediately and the remaining amount preserved for future testing in the event the first test is positive. It shall be the responsibility of the respondent to inform the laboratory and collection agency that the urine sample must be split and an amount preserved for future testing in the event of a positive test. Respondent shall bear the cost of any test and any retest necessitated by a positive test result. The results of the testing shall be provided directly to Hook and the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel by the testing facility. Hook shall specifically advise the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel of the outcome of the monthly test in his monthly report. The Office of the Attorney Regulation Counsel has the authority, if sufficient technological advances occur, to further monitor Hook through electronic means. Any technological advance for further monitoring shall be paid for by Hook.
E. Hook shall continue with the weekly alcohol aftercare program at Exempla West Pines, or such other facility approved by the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, for a period of one year, or longer if any mental health professional or evaluator at the program determines he shall attend such program more frequently or for a longer period. Hook may substitute every other weekly meeting at Exempla West Pines with attendance at the Colorado Lawyer Assistance Program weekly meeting or similar peer support meeting as approved by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
F. Hook shall continue with his weekly anger management therapy sessions with Dr. Spencer Friedman, or another psychologist approved by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel for three years or a shorter period of time if recommended by Dr. Friedman.
G. Hook shall attend an Alcohol Anonymous or other equivalent recovery program, meeting at least two times per week for the three-year probation. If any mental health professional or evaluator requires that Hook attend such a recovery program more frequently, Hook shall comply with that recommendation.
H. Hook shall file a monthly report with the Office of Attorney Regulation regarding the status of his compliance with the conditions in this order.
I. Hook shall pay the costs of any treatment, testing or reporting.
J. Hook shall attempt with his psychiatrist to change his medications to drugs that do not activate the part of the brain that affects an addictive illness.
K Hook shall neither use, possess, nor have any contact with any firearm of any type during the period of probation.

2.It is anticipated this probation will end in May 2007. Hook must comply with all requirements of C.R.C.P. 251.7, including the timely filing of an affidavit. Hook acknowledges that he carries the burden to establish that all conditions of probation have been fully and timely met to avoid the remainder of his three year suspension being imposed.

3. Hook’s violation of any above condition of probation may result in the full three year suspension being imposed as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.7(e).

4. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, Hook shall pay all costs and administrative costs in conjunction with this matter. Complainant shall file a Statement of Costs within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order; Hook shall have ten (10) days thereafter to file a Response.


author: BOUDREAU, J. OPALA V.C.J.,

text:
    2004 OK 28
    STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. SANDRA W. KRUG, Respondent.
    No. SCBD 4733.
    Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
    April 13, 2004.
    Rehearing Denied June 21, 2004.
    Loraine Dillinder Farabow, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, OK, for Complainant.
    Jack S. Dawson, Miller Dollarhide, Oklahoma City, OK, for Respondent.
   BOUDREAU, J.

T1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) filed a Complaint against Sandra W. Krug (Respondent) under Rule 6, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 0.8.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, charging her in Count I with making a false statement of fact and offering false evidence to a tribunal, and in Count II with failing to fully respond to the General Counsel's notification that he was investigating allegations of her misconduct. The parties stipulated to the facts and that Respondent engaged in misconduct. The PRT held a hearing, found misconduct on both Counts, recommended a 80-day suspension and one year probation, and further recommended that if Respondent commits an ethical violation within the probation period, the suspension for the instant offenses be extended to one year. The OBA and Respondent stipulated to a public reprimand and one year probation. We exonerate Respondent on both Counts and deny the OBA's application for costs.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

12 We review the entire record de movo to determine if the OBA proved its allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. RGDP Rule 6.12%(c). Even when the parties stipulate to misconduct the stipulations do not bind us because our duty is to review the evidence de novo. OBA v. Taylor, 2003 OK 56, ¶ 2, 71 P.3d 18, 21.

II. FACTS

13 Upon our de movo review of the record we find the following facts. Respondent initiated probate proceedings as attorney for the estate of Callie Ann Robinson (the deceased). While the probate matter was pending, Respondent filed a related Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) action to evict Barbara J. Brown (Brown) and Basil Mack because they refused to vacate a house owned by the deceased. Brown defended her possession of the house by contending she inherited it from the deceased. She presented an affidavit allegedly signed by the deceased and asserted that it was the deceased's last Will wherein Brown inherited the deceased's entire estate. Judge James B. Croy, who was presiding over the FED matter, declined to rule on the validity of the affidavit as a Will and instead instructed Respondent to seek a ruling from Judge Carol Ann Hubbard, who was presiding over the related probate matter. Respondent hired a certified handwriting examiner to review the signature on the affidavit and the signatures on additional documents that she suspected Brown had forged (including numerous bank checks, a will, a joint tenancy deed, at least five credit card applications, gas and electric utility applications, an insurance policy and direct deposit applications for the deceased's social security and pension checks).

1 4 In anticipation of Judge Hubbard's ruling, Respondent prepared an order and made several copies of it, as is common practice in Oklahoma County District Court. The order consisted of one page and two lines on the second page followed by signature blocks. It included language finding that the signature on the affidavit was forged as well as language that the affidavit did not satisfy the execution requirements for a valid Will.

15 After notice to all parties, Judge Hubbard reviewed the affidavit in chambers in Respondent's presence and determined the affidavit did not satisfy the execution requirements for a valid Will. Because this determination was sufficient to resolve the issue, Judge Hubbard did not reach the question of forgery. She struck through the language of the order that concerned forgery, wrote her initials on the changes and signed the order. Judge Hubbard told Respondent that she should have known the affidavit was not a valid Will, that she wasted estate funds by hiring a document examiner, and that she, Judge Hubbard, would not allow such conduct. Immediately thereafter, Respondent took the original order and the previously made copies to the Court Clerk's office for filing and asked the clerk to certify the copies. Neither Respondent nor the clerk conformed the copies to the original order.

T6 Approximately five months later, Respondent applied for fees and costs in the FED matter. She stated in the application that she had rendered "extraordinary services" and detailed those services as follows:

that she has had to make five court appearances relating to the removal of [Barbara Brown and Basil Mack] from the home; that defendant Mack defaulted; that defendant Brown presented as evidence a forged document entitled Affidavit of Callie A. Robinson in an attempt to persuade this court that Brown was entitled to the entire Robinson estate and was therefore entitled to remain in the Robinson home; that this matter was held in abeyance until this attorney filed the questioned Affidavit with the probate court for the purpose of having it interpreted as to its authenticity and validity; that she had to employ a professional document examiner to have the questioned document examined; that said professional expert charges $500.00; that but for defendant Brown said extraordinary costs and fees would not have been necessary.

Respondent attached two exhibits in support of the application. The first exhibit was an itemized statement showing $2,175 in fees (which included $150 for one hour spent with the document examiner) and $681.88 in costs (which included $500 for the document examiner's fee). The second exhibit was one of the non-conformed copies of the order Judge Hubbard had entered in the probate matter. About three weeks later, Judge Croy ruled on Respondent's application. Judge Croy did not award the requested $500 for the document examiner. Of the requested $631.88 in costs, he awarded zero. It is not clear whether he awarded $150 for the time Respondent spent with the document examiner. Of the requested $2,175 in fees, he awarded $1,820.

T7 On November 6, 2000, approximately eight months after Respondent had applied for fees in the FED matter, she filed her third interim application for fees in the probate matter. Judge Hubbard became concerned about the total amount of fees requested, pulled the related FED court file and saw the non-conformed copy of her probate order that was attached to Respondent's FED fee application. On January 12, 2001, Judge Hubbard sua sponte vacated her first two interim fee awards, denied Respondent's third interim fee application, awarded Respondent the total sum of $5,000 for fees and costs, and ordered Respondent to refund all the previous fees awarded in excess of $5,000.

8 One month later, on February 11, 2001, the OBA General Counsel wrote his first letter to Respondent. The letter said:

Pursuant to [RGDP Rule 5.1], I am opening an investigation into the facts and cireumstances surrounding allegations that you filed a certified copy of an Order with an Application before another judge when the Order was not the Order that was filed in the previous case.
Enclosed is a copy of the document that constitutes the basis of this grievance. This instrument, in my opinion, may indicate that you may have committed actions that would constitute a violation of the [ORPC], which is the standard of conduct for all attorneys in the State of Oklahoma.
Under the above-cited Rules, this matter will be presented to the Professional Responsibility Commission, along with any response you make in this matter, and the results of our independent investigation. The Commission will then decided what action, if any, to take in this matter.
Our investigation will address, but is not limited to, alleged violation of [ORPC Rule 1.83].
According to [RGDP Rule 5.2], you are required to file a written response to this grievance within twenty (20) days from the date of this letter.
A copy of your response will be furnished to the complainant, if appropriate. No particular form is prescribed for responding to the grievance. Please include copies of any documents you have or statements of others that are relevant to the grievance so that this matter may be promptly concluded.
If you need additional time to respond, have questions regarding the procedure, or simply wish to talk to an attorney about your grievance, please contact our office. If you choose to respond to us by facsimile, we request that you also timely send your original letter to us.

(emphasis in original). Respondent and General Counsel exchanged several letters during the next thirty days. The letters took the general form of Respondent repeatedly asking General Counsel who "brought this matter to your attention" and of General Counsel refusing to tell her. Unsatisfied with Respondent's response, on March 27, 2002, General Counsel took Respondent's deposition pursuant to subpoena. The OBA filed its Complaint on June 28, 2002, and the PRT conducted its hearing on January 30, 2008. Respondent was the only witness at the PRT hearing. She and the OBA jointly introduced forty-one exhibits, stipulated to the facts and stipulated that Respondent engaged in misconduct.

III. COUNT I

T9 In Count I the OBA alleges Respondent violated ORPC Rules 3.8(a)(1), 8.8(a)(4), 8.4(a) and 8.4(c), and RGDP Rule 1.3. The OBA alleges Respondent violated these rules by attaching one of the non-conformed copies of the order Judge Hubbard had entered in the probate matter to the FED fee application.

1 10 The resolution of Count I depends on whether Respondent's conduct was done knowingly. The PRT found that Respondent's conduct constituted a knowing false statement of fact to a tribunal because one could interpret Respondent's act as an effort to recover the handwriting examiner's fee as a cost in the FED matter. The PRT also concluded that "regardless of whether [Respondent] intended to deceive Judge Croy," her mere act of attaching the non-conformed order constituted a violation of Rule 8.3(a), citing State ex rel. OBA v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91, 863 P.2d 1136.

11 Johnston does not go as far as the PRT suggests. Although Johnston does say a "false statement to a tribunal ... requires no proof of bad or evil intent, nor must it be material," id. at 1148, it does not do away with ORPC Rule 3.8(a)'s requirement that the alleged act be done knowingly. In fact, the case cited by Johnston makes this clear. The cited case, OBA v. McMillian, 1989 OK 16, 770 P.2d 892, expressly reaffirms the requirement that the alleged act be done knowingly: "As long as the lawyer has actual knowledge of a false statement of fact or law, no inquiry need be made as to his [or her] motivation for making the false statement to show a rule violation." - McMillian, 770 P.2d at 899 (emphasis added).

{12 For purposes of ORPC Rule 3.3(a), knowingly means "actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from cireumstances." 50.8. 2001, Ch. 1, App. 3 A (Terminology). Thus, to prevail on Count I of its Complaint in this matter, the OBA must prove more than the fact that Respondent physically "attached" (i.e., stapled) a copy of the non-conformed order to her fee application. Rather, the OBA must prove Respondent had actual knowledge she was making a false statement of fact to Judge Croy, i.e., that the order she attached to her fee application was a non-conformed copy of the original.

T 13 Despite the PRT's conclusion that Respondent violated ORPC Rule 8.3(a), it acknowledged in its Report: "It is not certain whether [Respondent's] use of the erroneous order in her fee application was intentional or an oversight." In other words, the panel itself questioned whether the Respondent's conduct was done with actual knowledge. Our de novo review of the evidence leads us to the same question. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she did not realize the copy of the order she attached to her fee application was non-conformed until Judge Hubbard pointed it out to her. While there is evidence in the record from which one could infer Respondent's conduct was knowingly done, we find that such evidence does not rise to the clear and convincing level required in a bar discipline proceeding. Accordingly, we find that the OBA failed to prove Respondent violated ORPC Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.3(a)(4), 8.4(a), and RGDP Rule 1.3 and we exonerate Respondent on Count I.

IV. COUNT II

I 14 In Count II the OBA alleges Respondent violated ORPC Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(a), and RGDP Rules 1.3 and 5.2. The OBA alleges Respondent violated these rules by failing to provide a full and fair response to General Counsel's notification that her conduct was being investigated. According to th 5, e OBA, Respondent's February 12, March and March 11, 2002, written responses to General Counsel's letters fell short of the "full and fair disclosure" required by the Tu les. The three letters read as follows:

Letter dated 2/12/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:
I notice this grievance is brought in your name.
Please inform me of who is responsible for this complaint, who brought this matter to your attention, who is behind this, who is the complainant?
Letter dated 3/05/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:
Mr. Murdock-You are giving me the impression that you are showing favoritism or are attempting a cover-up. Certainly you don't think you would need to hide information from me in an attempt [to] protect someone from retaliation by me. Why are you keeping this information from me? Why are you withholding information? If no one else but you is complaining then tell me how the information came to you. Please set forth all the facts.
You state no one is accusing me of anything and then set forth violations of [RGDP Rule 1.3], to which you now add rule 8.8(a)(1) and (4) and rule 8.4(c).
Your last correspondence was dated March 1st, but I did not receive it until today. Obviously I will not be able to comply with the response date of March lith. And why are you setting such short response dates?
Additionally, the issues set forth in all my correspondence do not appear to be satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, I request a reasonable amount of additional time.
I do not want to engage in a power struggle with you. I just want fall disclosure.
Letter dated 3/11/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:
I have received correspondence from Tony Blasier with a partial response to the issues I raised with you. He denies that you are showing favoritism to anyone in this matter but fails to deny that you are covering-up for someone. For the most part the issues I have raised are still not being addressed.
As a basis for grievance against me you sent me a packet of pleadings from one of my cases. You did not come by this information on your own. You are evasive and are apparently covering up for someone for whom you deny showing favoritism. This in my opinion is unconscionable, and I question the ethics of it, as well as the constitutionality of it. I think you are stretching the rules in your favor while tightening the screws on me each time I respond.
The rules call for an initial response time of 20 days from the date of receipt of the grievance, but you mandated 20 days from the date of the letter. Time extensions are discretionary under the rules, but you allowed one 10 day extension with a direction to meet that deadline. I can only assume that means you will proceed to saddle me with another grievance. And I wonder why time is of the essence here.
I am concerned that this grievance may be an attempt to gain tactical advantage of me in another case. But I do not know because you refuse to disclose information when there is no logical reasons to withhold it, and in my opinion, in this matter, this is a stretch of the "Rules", and unconstitutional.
I have responded several times to your grievance letter. And I have raised issues to which you have not responded. As to the accusation pertaining to the certified copies of Orders, I do not know the answer. Perhaps the court clerk made a mistake which is not uncommon.
I await your response as to the identify of the person responsible for supplying you with the pleadings.

T 15 At first glance, the resolution of Count II seems to call for a review of these letters to determine if they provide a full and fair disclosure of the facts pertaining to Respondent's alleged misconduct. Under the unusual facts of this case, however, we will first determine what is required of the General Counsel under RGDP Rules 5.1 and 5.2.

{16 RGDP Rule 5.1(a) authorizes allegations of misconduct to be brought to General Counsel's attention either in a "written, signed grievance" or "in any [other] manner whatsoever." - Under either cireumstance, General Counsel then conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if further action is warranted.

{17 RGDP Rule 5.2 sets out the procedure when General Counsel determines further action is warranted. The procedure varies depending on whether the allegation of misconduct came to the General Counsel in a written, signed grievance or in some other manner. If the allegations came in a written, signed grievance, General Counsel must file and serve a copy of "the grievance" upon the lawyer. The copy of the grievance will, of course, reveal not only the basis for the alleged misconduct but also the identity of the person who submitted the grievance. If the allegations came in some other manner, General Counsel must file and serve a "recital of relevant facts or allegations" upon the lawyer. RGDP Rule 5.2 does not specify whether this recital must include the identity of the person who made the allegations.

118 Although RGDP Rule 5.2 does not specify the contents of the recital, we conclude that the identity of the person who made the allegations of misconduct is a relevant fact that the General Counsel must include in the recital to the accused lawyer under Rule 5.2. In our view, the identity of the complaining person in an attorney discipline matter is a relevant fact because it may help shape the lawyer's response. In addition, we can discern no reason why a lawyer whose conduct has been reported to General Counsel in an informal way should be treated differently in this regard than a lawyer whose conduct has been reported by way of a written, signed grievance.

T 19 Having concluded that the recital provided by General Counsel must include the identity of the complaining person, we apply this conclusion to the facts of this case. The record reveals that despite Respondent's repeated requests for the identity of the complaining person, General Counsel never revealed this information to her, either in his initial recital, in his subsequent letters, or in his deposition of Respondent. Without this information, Respondent did not have all the "relevant facts or allegations" at her disposal.

T20 This is not a case in which Respondent wholly failed to respond to the General Counsel's notification that her conduct was being investigated. Rather, her February 12, March 5 and March 11, 2002, letters were attempts to secure relevant information necessary to fully respond. Because Respondent maintained communication with General Counsel and requested information to which she is entitled, we conclude the OBA failed to prove Respondent violated ORPC Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(a), and RGDP Rules 1.3 and 5.2.

v. CONCLUSION

1 21 We exonerate Respondent on Count I because the OBA failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly made a false statement of fact or knowingly offered evidence that she knew to be false to a tribunal. We also exonerate Respondent on Count II. Since General Counsel never revealed to Respondent the identity of the person who made the informal report of misconduct, and since he has a duty to reveal that information, Respondent's February 12, March 5 and March 11, 2002, letters to General Counsel did not violate RGDP Rule 5.2. Finally, because we exonerate Respondent on both Counts, we deny the OBA's application for costs.

RESPONDENT EXONERATED; OBA'S APPLICATION FOR COSTS DENIED.

WATT, C.J., HODGES, LAVENDER, HARGRAVE, KAUGER and EDMONDSON, JJ., concur.

OPALA, V.C.J and WINCHESTER, J., dissent.

APPENDIX

Letter dated 2/11/02, from General Counsel to Respondent:

Pursuant to [RGDP Rule 5.1], I am opening an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding allegations that you filed a certified copy of an Order with an Application before another judge when the Order was not the Order that was filed in the previous case.

Enclosed is a copy of the document that constitutes the basis of this grievance. This instrument, in my opinion, may indicate that you may have committed actions that would constitute a violation of the [ORPC], which is the standard of conduct for all attorneys in the State of Oklahoma.

Under the above-cited Rules, this matter will be presented to the Professional Responsibility Commission, along with any response you make in this matter, and the results of our independent investigation. The Commission will then decided what action, if any, to take in this matter.

Our investigation will address, but is not limited to, alleged violation of [ORPC Rule 1.31.

According to [RGDP Rule 5.2], you are required to file a written response to this grievance within twenty (20) days from the date of this letter.

A copy of your response will be furnished to the complainant, if appropriate. No particular form is prescribed for responding to the grievance. Please include copies of any documents you have or statements of others that are relevant to the grievance so that this matter may be promptly concluded.

If you need additional time to respond, have questions regarding the procedure, or simply wish to talk to an attorney about your grievance, please contact our office. If you choose to respond to us by facsimile, we request that you also timely send your original letter to us.

Letter dated 2/12/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:

I notice this grievance is brought in your name.

Please inform me of who is responsible for this complaint, who brought this matter to your attention, who is behind this, who is the complainant?

Letter dated 2/19/02, from General Counsel to Respondent:

I am in receipt of your fax dated February 12, 2002.

[RGDP Rule 5.1] provides that the General Counsel or the Professional Responsibility Commission of the [OBA] may institute an investigation based on information brought to their attention in any manner whatsoever.

The - above-referenced - grievance - was opened based on information brought to my attention. No other information will be provided. You are again requested to respond to the grievance as directed by my letter dated February 11, 2002.

Letter dated 2/28/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:

T received your February 19th letter. But, it was not responsive to my February 12th question of who is trying to get me in trouble. Therefore, I present the following issues:

1. I am not able to find anywhere in the rules where it is said the complainant may be kept secret. And it is my understanding the Constitution does not permit this. Where is it written that I have no right to know who my accuser is? As I read [RGDP Rule 5.1], which you cite, it provides that you may conduct an investigation based upon facts and allegations brought to you in any manner, meaning they do not have to be given to you in writing. - But where is the rule or law that provides that my accuser can remain concealed?
2. Your February lith letter states a copy of my response will be furnished to the complainant. But your position is that I cannot know who that complainant is. At the same time you are demanding full disclosure from me. Where is the fairness here? I can not reasonably respond until I know what this is really about, and who is doing this.
3. I am not clear what Rule of Professional Conduct you are accusing me of violating. Is it Rule 1.3, Diligence?
4. Therefore, I respectfully request sufficient additional time to respond until these issues are satisfactorily resolved.

Letter dated 3/1/02, from General Counsel to Respondent:

I am in receipt of your fax dated February 28, 2002. My letter of February 19, 2002 was responsive to the issues raised in your previous letter, but I further respond to the numbered issues raised in your letter of February 19, 2002[sic] as follows:

1. No one is accusing you of anything. I am investigating a matter pursuant to the [RGDP]. You may consider me the complainant.
2. I am the complainant. Please review the first paragraph of my letter dated February 11, 2002 to know what this is all about.
3. The possible rule violation is [RGDP Rule 1.3]. However, after further review, I am also directing your attention to Rules 8.3(a)(1) and (4) and 8.4(c). Copies of those rules are enclosed.

These matters are satisfactorily resolved. I will expect your response by March 11, 2002.

Letter dated 3/05/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:

Mr. Murdock-You are giving me the impression that you are showing favoritism or are attempting a cover-up. Certainly you don't think you would need to hide information from me in an attempt [tol protect someone from retaliation by me. Why are you keeping this information from me? Why are you withholding information? If no one else but you is complaining then tell me how the information came to you. Please set forth all the facts.

You state no one is accusing me of anything and then set forth violations of [RGDP Rule 1.3], to which you now add rule 3.38(a)(1) and (4) and rule 8.4(c).

Your last correspondence was dated March ist, but I did not receive it until today. Obviously I will not be able to comply with the response date of March 11th. And why are you setting such short response dates?

Additionally, the issues set forth in all my correspondence do not appear to be satisfactorily resolved. Therefore, I request a reasonable amount of additional time.

I do not want to engage in a power struggle with you. I just want full disclosure.

Letter dated 3/06/02, from Tony Blasier, Investigator, to Respondent:

I am the investigator assigned to the above-referenced grievance. I have seen the several pieces of correspondence you have submitted and Dan Murdock's responses to said correspondence.

No one is being shown favoritism. The General Counsel's office and Mr. Murdock have acted in accordance with the [RGDP]. You have been supplied a copy of the documents which formed the basis of the grievance, a list of the rules that may have been violated, and our written notification of your obligation to respond. If we didn't insist that you timely respond to the grievance as required by the [RGDP] then this office would be showing you favoritism.

In regards to you allegation that we are setting short response dates, that is not the case. The [RGDP] requires your response within twenty days of the date you receive a copy of the grievance. You requested an extension and one was granted. Our initial letter, advising you of the grievance, was mailed on February 11, 2002. You received that letter on February 12, 2002. Twenty days from February 12 would have made your response due by no later than March 4, 2002. By letter dated February 28, 2002, you requested an extension of time and on March 1, 2002, you were mailed a letter notifying you that your response time had been extended to March 11, 2002.

In summary, you have been provided with everything the [RGDP] requires. You are again directed to submit a response which complies with [RGDP Rule 5.2] on or before March 11, 2002.

Letter dated 3/11/02, from Respondent to General Counsel:

I have received correspondence from Tony Blasier with a partial response to the issues I raised with you. He denies that you are showing favoritism to anyone in this matter but fails to deny that you are covering-up for someone. For the most part the issues I have raised are still not being addressed.

As a basis for grievance against me you sent me a packet of pleadings from one of my cases. You did not come by this information on your own. You are evasive and are apparently covering up for someone for whom you deny showing favoritism. This in my opinion is unconscionable, and I question the ethics of it, as well as the constitutionality of it. I think you are stretching the rules in your favor while tightening the serews on me each time I respond.

The rules call for an initial response time of 20 days from the date of receipt of the grievance, but you mandated 20 days from the date of the letter. Time extensions are discretionary under the rules, but you allowed one 10 day extension with a direction to meet that deadline. I can only assume that means you will proceed to saddle me with another grievance. And I wonder why time is of the essence here.

I am concerned that this grievance may be an attempt to gain tactical advantage of me in another case. But I do not know because you refuse to disclose information when there is no logical reasons to withhold it, and in my opinion, in this matter, this is a stretch of the "Rules", and unconstitutional.

I have responded several times to your grievance letter. And I have raised issues to which you have not responded. As to the accusation pertaining to the certified copies of Orders, I do not know the answer. Perhaps the court clerk made a mistake which is not uncommon.

I await your response as to the identify of the person responsible for supplying you with the pleadings.

Subpoena issued 3/14/02. Thereafter, on March 14, 2002, the OBA applied for and was issued a subpoena duces tecum directing Respondent to testify before the Professional Responsibility Commission on March 27, 2002. The subpoena, together with copies of the parties' correspondence (which were attached to the subpoena as Exhibits A-H), was served on Respondent March 15, 2002, by private process server.

Letter dated 3/18/02. On March 18, 2002, Respondent wrote to General Counsel:

Please explain why you caused a subpoena to issue?

Please tell me the identity of the person who brought this matter to your attention?

Deposition taken 3/27/02. On March 27, 2002, General Counsel Dan Murdock took the deposition of Respondent. In this deposition, Murdock reviewed the correspondence exchanged between the OBA and Respondent from 2/11/02 through 3/11/02 (i.e., exhibits AH that were attached to the subpoena). Respondent stipulated to the correspondence. When Murdock asked if Respondent had ever "responded" to the "grievance," Respondent said: "Pertaining to the certified copies of orders, I do not know the answer. That is my response, I do not know. I do not understand. The court clerk perhaps made a mistake. That is my answer, and I still don't know who is behind this grievance or how this all came about." When Murdock began asking about the pleadings and papers that Respondent filed in the FED matter, Respondent stipulated to the contents of the court clerk's file. She also acknowledged that the copy of the order she attached to her fee application in the FED matter was not conformed to the original order signed by Judge Hubbard in the probate matter. When Murdock asked why it was not conformed, Respondent said: "I can't explain it, I cannot explain it. Unless the court clerk has made a mistake. I will admit to filing the document. I will stipulate to everything in the file, those things-every court pleading you have there. As far as what happened here, I really cannot explain it." Mur-dock then asked: "So do you know or have any reason, other than it's the court clerk's fault, that an incorrect order was filed in the case?" Respondent said: "I cannot explain it. -It would be of absolutely no benefit to me to file it, to have it certified. It doesn't even need to be file stamped. It's doesn't even need to be presented to the judge. I could testify to the existence of it. If I wanted to do something wrong, I wouldn't risk my license on that. It's certainly not something-it wasn't necessary to the case. It's just not something that's important enough to screw up. That document wasn't important to the FED case. Not enough to falsify certification which is I think what I'm being accused of." Murdock responded: "No, I think the allegation is, is that during the course of the [FED] case you attached and filed a document to your application for attorney's fees that was not the correct document that Judge Hubbard had signed. That's all it is." Respondent said: "Well, when you take-All right. Okay. When you take a stack of copies of a document to the judge to be signed, you may have four or five copies, eight copies, three copies, two copies, whatever. The judge signs the top copy, then you go to the court clerk's office and you file them, and the court clerk certifies them and file stamps them or whatever it is they do to them, and occasionally they make mistakes. I don't know, I cannot explain this. I don't have the original of those things, I'm not the attorney in that case anymore, those files have been turned over to the other attorneys. I can't explain it. I don't know. It was not anything that was beneficial to me to do. It didn't help me at all. It didn't hurt anybody. It didn't even need to be filed. It didn't need to be done." Murdock then ended his deposition of Respondent.

OPALA V.C.J.,

with whom WINCHESTER, J., joins, dissenting.

T1 Respondent's exoneration of ' disciplinary breach charged in both counts is plainly erroncous. Firstly, a lawyer's intent is wholly irrelevant in an inquiry to determine if there was a violation of ORPC 3.3(a)(1)). The court's reliance on "intent" is henee misplaced. Secondly, there is clear and convineing evidence to support respondent's breach of Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and of Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Thirdly, the court's act of relieving respondent of the binding effect of her stipulation is, absent compelling equitable considerations, contrary to extant jurisprudence.

COUNT I

A LAWYER VIOLATES ORPC 3.3(a)(1) BY SUBMITTING TO A COURT A NON-CONFORMING COPY OF A JUDGE'S ORDER

T2 By the terms of ORPC 3.3(a)(1) a lawyer is subject to discipline for knowingly presenting any false statement of fact or law to a court. Knowingly-as used in the context of 8.8(a)(1)-means having actual knowledge that may be inferred from the cireumstances. Whether respondent's submission of a non-conforming copy of the Judge's order was intentional or a mere oversight is completely irrelevant. The mere fact that she filed a non-conforming order (subsequently attached to a fee application), along with her admission of liability by stipulation, establishes by clear and convincing evidence actual knowledge and a clear breach of 3.3(a)(1). - Respondent stands in violation of her professional duty to exhibit candor and to provide truthful information to a tribunal. She is hence subject to appropriate discipline.

T3 Today's pronouncement disregards respondent's stipulation to her violation of ORPC 3.3(a)(1), although she never asked this court to be relieved of her solemn commitment to the admission. Because her stipulation concedes the critical fact at issue, this court is now powerless, absent compelling equitable circumstances, to reject sua sponte the legal consequences of her admitted fact. Equitable cireumstances are totally absent here.

T4 Respondent failed to adduce the only proof that could refute her implied or inferred knowledge of the breach. That refutation called for invoking the defense of automatism. The record is devoid of evidence indicating respondent was unconscious at the time of her wrongful submission of a nonconforming document. Automatism is a defense distinct from that of insanity (where proof of mental disease or defect must be established). To prove an unconscious state, one's condition must be shown to have been beyond one's control and not the result of any voluntary act. When questioned about her failure to file a conforming copy of the order, respondent, on several occasions, avoided giving the PRT a direct answer.

CoUNT II

RESPONDENTS REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO THE BAR PROSECUTOR'S (GENERAL COUNSEL) INQUIRY VIOLATES ORPC 8.1(b) and 8.4(a), and RGDP 1.3 and 5.2.

T5 In the absence of any rule to the contrary, the Bar prosecutor is not required to reveal information pertaining to a grievance unless, of course, it would be critical to respondent's proof of her innocence. Respondent did not demonstrate any need to know the identity of the complainant. No nexus was shown between the identity of that person and respondent's submission of a flawed document. She should have pressed, by orderly process, for discovery of the complainant's identity rather than declining to reveal the information the Bar sought or providing misleading facts. In short, respondent could not insist on conditioning her cooperation upon the Bar prosecutor's willingness to identify the complainant. Respondent's recalcitrant attitude provides vivid proof of her utter disrespect for the law's orderly process. In sum, her refusal to respond to the prosecutor's quest must be treated as a breach of professional discipline.

SUMMARY

16 Today's pronouncement needlessly and in disregard of applicable law delivers a mortal blow to the efficient operation of the Bar's prosecutorial service. The court improperly (a) reads an element of intent into the language of ORPC 3.3(a)(1) and (b) relieves respondent-sua sponte and in the absence of compelling equitable considerations-of her solemn admission that she breached - professional - discipline. - The Bar's prosecutor is wrongly placed under duty to disclose the identity of a complainant when that information stands utterly disconnected from a respondent's need for exculpatory proof. Sans any legal warrant, a complainant is stripped today of the anonymity conferred by a time-honored rule of practice in the grievance process. I would impose the discipline recommended by the PRT.

      . The OBA alleges Respondent violated certain rules of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 0.$.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, and certain rules of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 0.8.2001, Ch. 1, App. 3-A. In this opinion we cite to these rules as RGDP Rule-or ORPC Rule-.

      . On November 15, 1999, Judge Hubbard awarded interim fees and costs in the amounts of $7,770 and $720, respectively. On January 31, 2000, Judge Hubbard awarded interim fees and costs in the amounts of $9,255 and $558.34, respectively. Respondent's third interim appli- - cation for fees and costs sought the amounts of $9,615 and $88.01, respectively.

      . Respondent appealed on the ground that Judge Hubbard did not have authority to vacate her previous two interim orders. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) affirmed Judge Hubbard's authority to review those interlocutory orders at any time prior to the entry of a final order, but remanded with instructions to award a reasonable fee, saying: "There is ample evidence in this record to suggest that Attorney's efforts on behalf of Estate may not have been adequately compensated by the trial court." COCA directed Judge Hubbard on remand to "afford Attorney the opportunity, in an evidentiary hearing, to present evidence of the type and amount of work done while engaged as Estate's attorney, and award a reasonable fee therefore." In the Matter of the Estate of Callie Ann Robinson, No. 95,848 (May 14, 2002) (unpublished opinion).

      . The letiers are set out in the Appendix to this opinion. The Appendix also contains excerpts from Respondent's deposition.

      . The charges against Respondent grew with the passing of time. In General Counsel's first letter, he notified Respondent he was investigating a possible violation of ORPC Rule 1.3. Six weeks later, he notified her he was adding ORPC Rules 3.3(a)(1), 3.3(a)(4) and 8.4(c). By the time he filed the Complaint, he had added RGDP Rule 5.2 and ORPC Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(a).

      . ORPC Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (a)(4) provide in pertinent part:
      A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; ... or (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false ...
      ORPC Rule 8.4(a) provides in pertinent part: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
      ORPC Rule 8.4(c) provides in pertinent part: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
      At the beginning of the PRT hearing the OBA withdrew its allegation that Respondent violated ORPC Rule 8.4(c).
      RGDP Rule 1.3 provides in pertinent part:
      The commission by any lawyer of any act contrary to prescribed standards of conduct, whether in the course of [the lawyer's] professional capacity, or otherwise, which act would reasonably be found to bring discredit upon the legal profession, shall be grounds for disciplinary action....

      . McMillian construed the then-effective DR-7-102(A)(5), Code of Professional Responsibility, 5 0.$.1981, Ch 1, App. 3, which is virtually identical to the now effective Rule 3.3(a)(1).

      . We acknowledge Respondent stipulated that she violated ORPC Rule 3.3(a) but we reject her stipulation because the record does not support it. See State ex rel. OBA v. Carpenter, 1993 OK 86, 863 P.2d 1123, 1131-32 (stipulations not binding on de novo review by the court); State ex rel OBA v. Livshee, 1994 OK 12, 870 P.2d 770, 774 (same). Respondent's stipulation was based on her erroneous assumption that the word knowingly as used in ORPC Rule 3.3(a) is defined by reference to our criminal statutes. It is not. In criminal proceedings, the word knowingly "imports only a knowledge that the facts exist which bring the act or omission within the provisions of [the criminal codel. If does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of such act or omission." 21 0.$.2001, § 96 (emphasis added). In bar disciplinary proceedings, however, the word knowingly means "actual knowledge of the fact in question." There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent actually knew she had attached a non-conformed copy of Judge Hubbard's order to the FED fee application.

      . - ORPC Rule 8.1(b) provides in pertinent part:
      [A] lawyer in connection ... with a disciplinary matter, shall not ... knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from ... a disciplinary authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
      For text of ORPC Rule 8.4(a), see footnote 6,
      For text of RGDP Rule 1.3, see footnote 6, supra.
      RGDP Rule 5.2 provides:
      After making such preliminary investigation as the General Counsel may deem appropriate, the General Counsel shall either (1) notify the person filing the grievance and the lawyer that the allegations of the grievance are inadequate, incomplete' or insufficient to warrant the further attention of the Commission, provided that such action shall be reported to the Commission at its next meeting, or (2) file and serve a copy of the grievance (or, in the case of an investigation instituted on the part of the General Counsel or the Commission without the filing of a signed grievance, a recital of the relevant facts or allegations) upon the lawyer, who shall thereafter make a written response which contains a full and fair disclosure of all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the respondent lawyer's alleged misconduct unless the respondent's refusal to do so is predicated upon expressed constitutional grounds. Deliberate misrepresentation in such response shall itself be grounds for discipline. The failure of a lawyer to answer within twenty (20) days after service of the grievance (or recital of facts or allegations), or such further time as may be granted by the General Counsel, shall be grounds for discipline. The General Counsel shall make such further investigation of the grievance and response as the General Counsel may deem appropriate before taking any action.

      . If General Counsel determines no further action is warranted upon a written, signed grievance, General Counsel must notify both the lawyer and the person filing the grievance that "the allegations of the grievance are inadequate, incomplete, or insufficient to warrant the further attention of the Commission." RGDP Rule 5.2.

      . Although we exonerate Respondent on Count II, we nevertheless want to point out that her responses were consistent concerning how it happened that she wound up with non-conformed certified copies of the original order. Her consistent response was that she did not know, as the following excerpts show:
      3/11/02 letter from Respondent to General Counsel: "As to the accusation pertaining to the certified copies of Orders, I do not know the answer. Perhaps the court clerk made a mistake which is not uncommon."
      3/27/02 deposition: "A: Pertaining to the certified copies of orders, I do not know the answer. That is my response, I do not know. I do not understand. The court clerk perhaps made a That is answer."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 21: "Q: Do you how that happened? A: I do not. I didn't know it had happened."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 28: "I did respond on the deadline. ... What I said was, 'I do not know the answer' to your questions. I do not know how this happened."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 314: "Q: Do you still, today, do you know how the mistake was made? A: I don't know how the mistake was made."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 58: "Q: When you read your copy of the deposition, do you believe you answered Mr. Murdock's questions fully and fairly? A: To the best of my ability at the time. I did not know what happened. I still don't know what happened."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 71: "A: The technical issue, my answer is I don't know what happened. They wanted additional information as to Judge Hubbard's testimony. I don't know how it happened. Q: And so, really, the technical issue is you don't know, it just happened. A: That's right. I don't know what happened."
      1/30/03 hearing, page 115: "A: I could have filled in more detail, but my answer is I don't know what happened. The Bar wanted more than that."

      . Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC), 5 0.$.2001, Ch. 1, App. 3-A, provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal."

      . Although I concede that a lawyer's intent may be relevant in determining the extent of discipline to be imposed, I cannot accede to the court's consideration of intent as an element of violation of ORPC 3.3(a)(1).

      . The terms of Rule 6.12(c), 5 0.$.2001, Ch. 1, App. 1-A, in relevant part, provide:
      . to warrant a finding against the respondent in a contested case, the charge or charges must be established by clear and convincing evidence." [emphasis supplied]

      . The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings are referred to as ORPC and RGDP, respectively.

      . See supra at note 1.

      . See ORPC (Terminology), 5, Ch. 1, App. 3-4, provides that "a person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances." See also Annotated Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct, 2d ed., p. 11 (1992).

      . See Oklahoma Bar Assoc. v. Johnston, 1993 OK 91, 863 P.2d 1136, 1143 (1993), which holds that "a 'false statement' to a tribunal, as distinguished from a 'misrepresentation,' requires no proof of 'bad or evil intent, nor must it be material."

      . Id. at 1144. A violation of ORPC 3.3(a)(1) is established by "any incorrect statement of law or fact made to a tribunal by a lawyer having actual knowledge of its falsity, no matter how insignificant." The Trial Panel Report of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (Page 4) states, "[the point is-it is the attorney's responsibility to make sure that copies of pleadings that are submitted to the Court Clerk for filing and certification are identical to the original."

      . Insofar as it is consistent with the disciplinary rules, state law may be invoked as a supplemental source for application in bar disciplinary process. Constructive knowledge of the contents of the non-conforming text of the order stands imputed to respondent by force of the authority contained in the provisions of 12 0.S. Supp.2003 § 2011 and 25 0.8.1987 § 13.
      The terms of 12 O.S. Supp.2003 § 2011, in relevant part, provide:
      "Every pleading, motion, and other paper ... shall be signed by at least one attorney or record in his individual name.... The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper." [emphasis supplied]
      The terms of 25 0.$.1987 § 13 provide:
      "Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, and who omils to make such inquiry with reasonable diligence, is deemed to have constructive notice of the fact itself." [emphasis supplied]

      . See Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Abbott, 2000 OK 64, 11 P.3d 1239, 1241 (2000); Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Livshee, 1994 OK 12, 870 P.2d 770, 774 (1994); Bonner v. Okla. Rock Corp., 1993 OK 131, 863 P.2d 1176, 1181 (1993) (stipulations are solemn admissions and generally are binding and conclusive on the parties and on the court unless the court, upon request, finds tenable legal ground for relieving one from the legal effect of the stipulation); Jones v. Lee, 1998 NMCA 008, 126 NM. 467, 971 P.2d 858 (N.M.Ct.App.1998) ("the general rule is that stipulations are ordinarily binding on the parties absent fraud, mistake, improvidence, material change in circumstances, or unless equitable considerations require otherwise"); Monasebian v. DuBois, 293 N.Y.S.2d 27, 30 A.D.2d 839 (1968) ("[rlelief from stipulations will be granted based on general equitable considerations ... due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties").

      . The terms of 21 0.$.2001 § 152(6) provide: "All persons are capable of committing crimes, except those belonging to the following classes: Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof."

      . See Sellers v. State, 1991 OK CR 41, 809 P.2d 676, 686 (1991); Jones v. State, 1982 OK CR 112, 648 P.2d 1251, 1258 (1982). For automatism to afford protection from accountability, the illegal act [or the actor's condition] must be the "result of [an] involuntary act which is completely be-youd the individual's knowledge or control."

      . See Sellers, supra at 687 ("Examples of automatic conduct are blackouts and epileptic seizures").

      . Hearing before the PRT Page 37 (line 23)-Page 39 (line 5)
      Q. You've read the stipulations that you've endorsed today, have you not?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Okay. And you read them with the advice of your attorney, did you not?
      A. Yes.
      Q. And have you actively engaged and worked on the drafting of these stipulations to their final format?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Okay. And you understand what the stipulations purport to the Court-
      A. Yes.
      Q. -and to the Trial Panel members, do you not?
      A. Yes.
      Q. And have you entered into these stipulations freely and voluntarily?
      A. Yes.
      Q. You understand that the PRT is not bound by the stipulations of fact or law.
      A. Right
      Q. You understand the PRT is not bound by the recommendation of discipline, correct?
      A. Ido.
      Q. - And you also understand thai the Supreme Court is not bound by these stipulations?
      A. Yes.
      Q. The Supreme Court is not bound by the PRI's recommendation.
      A. Yes.
      Q. Okay. It's still your intention then to go ahead and enter into these stipulations today
      A. Yes.
      Q. -Is that correct?
      A. Yes.

      . The terms of RGDP 5.1, 5, Ch. 1, App. 1 A provide:
      "Each grievance or request for investigation . involving a lawyer ... shall be in writing and signed by the person filing the same, except that the General Counsel ... may, in their discretion, institute an investigation on the basis of facts or allegations involving a lawyer ... brought to their attention in any manner whatsoever."
      The terms of RGDP 5.2, 5, Ch. 1, App. I-A provide:
      'The failure of a lawyer to answer within twenty (20) days after service of the grievance (or recital of facts or allegations), or such further time as may be granted by the General Counsel, shall be grounds for discipline."

      . See Rule 12-Immunity, American Bar Assoc.-Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (1993) ("A policy of conferring absolute immunity on the complainant encourages those who have some doubt about a lawyer's conduct to submit the maiter to the proper agency, where it may be examined and determined. Without immunity, some valid complaints will not be filed. The individual lawyer may suffer some hardship as the result of the occasional filing of a malicious complaint, but a profession that wants to retain the power to police its own members must be prepared to make some sacrifice to that cause").