Credible Evidence, Reciprocal Discipline, and the Path to Disbarment in Oklahoma: Commentary on State ex rel. OBA v. Conrady

I. Introduction

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Conrady, 2025 OK 74, is a significant contribution to Oklahoma’s attorney disciplinary jurisprudence in three main respects:

• It imposes disbarment based on a sustained pattern of neglect, mismanagement of client funds, frivolous litigation, and disregard of court orders.
• It clarifies the interaction between traditional disciplinary proceedings under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) and reciprocal discipline under RGDP Rule 7.7, arising from sanctions imposed by a federal appellate court.
• It gives unusually pointed guidance to the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) regarding its prosecutorial responsibilities—particularly the need to vet and candidly present the credibility problems of its own witnesses, and to remember that even deemed admissions under RGDP Rule 6.4 must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The case concerns Respondent James Albert Conrady, a Stillwater attorney with a prior suspension on his record, who was charged with five counts of misconduct involving multiple clients:

• Jason Clark (Count I)
• Donett Brooks (Count III)
• Geoffrey Arce (Count IV)
• Jodie Navarro and Micah Boggs (Count V)
• Margaret Lowery (Count II)

While the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) and the OBA saw misconduct in all five matters, the Supreme Court—conducting its own de novo review—ultimately found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in four client matters, but rejected Count II entirely based on the complainant’s lack of credibility and the Bar’s failure to substantiate the allegations independently.

Simultaneously, the Court addressed a Rule 7.7 reciprocal disciplinary proceeding arising from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to strike Conrady from its roll of admitted attorneys after he appeared while suspended and ignored court orders. The Court used that federal order as prima facie evidence of additional professional misconduct and also disciplined Conrady for failing to self-report those sanctions.

Ultimately, the Court disbarred Conrady, ordered him to pay costs, and held that he may not seek reinstatement for at least five years under RGDP Rule 11.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Procedural Posture and Authority

Acting under its exclusive constitutional and statutory authority to regulate the practice of law in Oklahoma and to discipline attorneys, the Supreme Court reviewed:

• A formal Rule 6 disciplinary proceeding (SCBD No. 7863) based on multiple client grievances, and
• A parallel summary reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under RGDP Rule 7.7 (SCBD No. 7940) triggered by the Tenth Circuit’s disbarment of Conrady.

The Court emphasized that in all bar discipline matters its review is de novo, and that it will impose discipline under Rule 6 only upon a finding of clear and convincing evidence of misconduct. It also reiterated that, even when allegations are “deemed admitted” under RGDP Rule 6.4 because a respondent fails to answer, the Court will not impose discipline unless the clear-and-convincing standard is satisfied.

B. Findings of Misconduct Under Rule 6

The Court found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct in four client representations:

1. Jason Clark (Count I): Pattern of neglect, lack of communication, frivolous federal litigation, disregard of ADR obligations, missed deadlines, failure to appear, and resulting sanctions and attorney’s-fee awards in federal court. Violations: ORPC Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 3.1 (meritorious claims), and thereby 8.4(a) (professional misconduct).
2. Donett Brooks (Count III): Acceptance of a substantial retainer to handle probate, estate planning, tax, and stock transfer matters; virtually no meaningful work performed; failure to return original documents; commingling of unearned fees with operating funds and no refund. Violations: ORPC Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 (unreasonable fee), 1.15 (safekeeping property), and 8.4(a).
3. Geoffrey Arce (Count IV): Filing a federal lawsuit that was never served and was dismissed without the client’s knowledge; failure to act in a related state replevin action, resulting in a $17,742.72 default judgment; mishandling of trust funds. Violations: ORPC Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4(a).
4. Navarro and Boggs (Count V): After successfully obtaining dismissal of a probate case for improper venue, Respondent promised to refile in the correct venue, did not do so, ceased proper communication, and neither performed work nor refunded remaining retainer funds that should have been safeguarded. Violations: ORPC Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4(a).

On Count II, however, concerning attorney Margaret Lowery, the Court expressly declined to find misconduct. Despite the default effect of RGDP Rule 6.4, the Court held that the OBA failed to produce credible clear and convincing evidence, highlighting both Lowery’s own extensive disciplinary history (including findings of dishonesty) and specific inconsistencies in her testimony. The Court criticized the Bar for presenting her as a witness without disclosing known credibility problems.

C. Rule 7.7 Reciprocal Discipline

Under RGDP Rule 7.7, the OBA notified the Court that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had stricken Conrady from its roll after he:

• Entered an appearance while suspended from practicing before that court, and
• Failed to respond to multiple orders and communications concerning his noncompliance with the court’s rules.

The Court found:

• Conrady violated RGDP Rule 7.7(a) by failing to self-report this discipline to the OBA within twenty days, and
• The certified copy of the Tenth Circuit’s order constituted prima facie evidence of misconduct under RGDP Rule 7.7(c), supporting violations of ORPC Rules 3.4(c) (disobeying tribunal rules) and 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law), and therefore Rule 8.4(a).

Respondent failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause in the Rule 7.7 proceeding, and the OBA urged disbarment.

D. Sanction and Disposition

The Court weighed:

• The seriousness and pattern of Conrady’s neglect and misconduct;
• Substantial harm to clients (including large arbitration awards, default judgments, and federal sanctions);
• Repeated mishandling of trust funds and unearned fees;
• Prior discipline—a two-year-and-one-day suspension in 2012 for serious criminal conduct, and reinstatement in 2017—used here as an aggravating factor under RGDP Rule 6.2; and
• His non-cooperation with the OBA during the investigation.

As mitigation, the Court credited Conrady’s appearance at the disciplinary hearing, his apology and expressions of shame, his acknowledgment of communication failures, and his ongoing efforts to locate and return client files and original documents.

Concluding that “the totality of Respondent’s conduct warrants disbarment” under both Rule 6 and Rule 7.7, and that his continued practice would “pose too great a danger” to the courts and the public, the Court:

• Disbarred Conrady from the practice of law in Oklahoma;
• Ordered him to pay costs of $4,833.99 within ninety days; and
• Provided that he may apply for reinstatement no sooner than five years after the decision’s effective date, following RGDP Rule 11 procedures.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Inherent Regulatory Authority and Standard of Review

The Court grounded its authority in Oklahoma law and in RGDP Rule 1.1, emphasizing—as in State ex rel. OBA v. Kruger, 2018 OK 58, and State ex rel. OBA v. Boone, 2016 OK 13—that:

• The Supreme Court of Oklahoma holds exclusive power to regulate the practice of law and discipline lawyers.
• Review in disciplinary matters is de novo—the Court independently examines the entire record and is not bound by the PRT’s conclusions or the parties’ stipulations.
• Misconduct in Rule 6 proceedings must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a standard defined in State ex rel. OBA v. Clark, 2023 OK 27, as producing “a firm belief or conviction” of the truth of the allegations.

2. RGDP Rule 6.4 and the “Deemed Admitted” Doctrine

RGDP Rule 6.4 provides that if a respondent does not answer, the allegations in the complaint are “deemed admitted.” However, relying on Clark and State ex rel. OBA v. Seratt, 2003 OK 22, the Court re-affirmed that:

Even when allegations are deemed admitted, we will impose discipline only upon finding that clear and convincing evidence was presented demonstrating the misconduct.

This principle was critical to the Court’s refusal to find misconduct in the Lowery count (Count II). It sent a strong message that default does not automatically equal liability; the Court insists on evidentiary reliability, especially where witness credibility is in serious doubt.

3. Combining Rule 6 and Rule 7 Proceedings

Citing State ex rel. OBA v. Knight, 2014 OK 71, ¶ 19, the Court reiterated that it may combine a Rule 6 action with another RGDP action (such as Rule 7.7 reciprocal discipline) for efficient resolution. Knight also furnishes the principle that the Court retains discretion to impose the same, lesser, or greater discipline than the sanction imposed in the foreign jurisdiction.

4. Purpose of Discipline: Protection, Not Punishment

In echoing State ex rel. OBA v. Bolton, 1995 OK 98, the Court restated that:

The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not to punish a lawyer, but to inquire into and to gauge the lawyer’s continued fitness to practice law, with a view to protecting the interest of the public, of the courts and of the legal profession.

This principle shaped both the analysis of sanction and the Court’s criticism of the OBA’s prosecutorial approach in relying on a manifestly unreliable witness (Lowery) without candor or context.

5. Prior Discipline as an Aggravator

Under RGDP Rule 6.2, prior discipline may be considered to enhance sanctions. The Court relied on State ex rel. OBA v. Mothershed, 2003 OK 34, and similar cases to treat Conrady’s 2012 suspension—“for shooting up the home of his ex-girlfriend’s boyfriend”—as a serious aggravating factor. His reinstatement in 2017 did not erase that history; it made the new pattern of misconduct more troubling.

6. Reciprocal Discipline Precedents

Two decisions are particularly relevant here:

• State ex rel. OBA v. Hyde, 2017 OK 59 – Imposed discipline under RGDP Rule 7 (reciprocal discipline) based on sanctions from the federal bankruptcy court, illustrating that federal discipline provides an independent basis for state sanctions.
• State ex rel. OBA v. Rymer, 2008 OK 50 – Emphasized that certified copies of disciplinary orders from other jurisdictions are prima facie evidence of the misconduct described and can ground discipline under Rule 7.7(c).

In Conrady, these precedents undergirded the Court’s acceptance of the Tenth Circuit’s order as prima facie evidence of violations of ORPC Rules 3.4(c) and 5.5.

7. Prior Discipline of Lowery

The Court referenced its own earlier decision in State ex rel. OBA v. Lowery, 2023 OK 54, where it imposed reciprocal discipline after the Illinois Supreme Court suspended Lowery. That case is critical to this opinion because the Court knew Lowery’s disciplinary history (including findings of dishonesty in disciplinary proceedings) and contrasted that with the OBA’s failure to disclose such background when offering her as a key witness in this case.

8. Recent Disciplinary Authorities on Sanctions

Finally, the Court cited State ex rel. OBA v. Mortenson, 2023 OK 32, and again Kruger, 2018 OK 58, to support the conclusion that the “totality” of a lawyer’s conduct may warrant disbarment, especially where continued practice poses a danger to clients and the judicial system.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Overall Framework: ORPC, RGDP, and the Standard of Proof

The decision adheres strictly to the two-layered structure of Oklahoma’s disciplinary regime:

• The Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC) set substantive standards for attorney behavior (e.g., competence, diligence, communication, candor, safeguarding property).
• The Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) prescribe procedures for investigating, prosecuting, and sanctioning violations of those standards.

Rule 8.4(a) operates as a definitional and linking provision: a violation of the substantive ORPC rules (such as Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.15) is itself “professional misconduct” for disciplinary purposes.

Under RGDP Rule 6.12(c), the Court must find clear and convincing evidence of each alleged violation before imposing discipline, and it applies that standard independently—even where the PRT has made factual findings or where the respondent has defaulted.

2. Count I – Jason Clark: Neglect, Frivolous Litigation, and Bad Faith

The Court’s analysis of Conrady’s representation of Jason Clark illustrates the cumulative nature of misconduct and how federal court findings can be imported into bar discipline.

Key facts included:

• Conrady initially invoked an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause (mediation/arbitration) as an affirmative defense in a state court dispute among Clark and his former business partners in Gator, LLC.
• Despite relying on the ADR clause, he then resisted mediation when opposing counsel sought to proceed, and failed to explain this strategy to Clark.
• He unsuccessfully appealed a temporary injunction, with the Court of Civil Appeals noting that Clark “failed to even present an argument.”
• Without Clark’s knowledge, Conrady refused to attend arbitration; arbitration proceeded in his and Clark’s absence, resulting in an award of nearly $340,000 against Clark.
• Conrady continued filing appeals and repeatedly reassured Clark that federal court litigation—ultimately two federal complaints alleging RICO and ERISA violations—would “fix” things.
• In federal court, Conrady repeatedly failed to serve defendants, respond to motions, comply with orders, and attend hearings; his conduct led to dismissals, sanctions, and fee awards.
• The federal court expressly found that he “delayed and disrupted” the litigation, acted “in bad faith, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” and that “[a] reasonable attorney would not have brought the federal claims as alleged,” describing his behavior as a “dereliction of duties.”

From these facts, the Court drew several conclusions:

• ORPC Rule 1.3 (Diligence) – Conrady failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness by missing deadlines, failing to serve process, ignoring orders, and not appearing at hearings.
• ORPC Rule 1.4 (Communication) – He did not adequately consult with Clark, did not explain his unusual strategy (refusing ADR he had invoked), and failed to keep Clark informed about mediation, arbitration, and federal developments, including dismissals and sanctions.
• ORPC Rule 3.1 (Meritorious Claims) – The federal court’s finding that no reasonable attorney would have brought the claims, coupled with the pattern of noncompliance, supported a finding that the litigation lacked a non-frivolous basis and was brought in bad faith.

These violations collectively constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a). Notably, although the PRT had found a violation of Rule 1.5 (unreasonable fee) based on Clark’s payment of approximately $40,000 for which he “received nothing of value,” the OBA did not argue a Rule 1.5 violation for this count in its brief. The Supreme Court declined to address that unbriefed issue, underscoring that it will not expand the disciplinary theory beyond what the Bar properly presents.

3. Count III – Donett Brooks: Neglect and Trust Account Misuse

For Brooks, the record showed:

• A $12,000 retainer for probate, estate planning, tax work, and stock transfers.
• Minimal substantive work beyond an appearance in the probate case; no significant progress on the promised tasks.
• Vague excuses (“just busy”) when pressed by the client.
• Failure to return all original documents, causing continuing difficulty for Brooks, who “cannot get anything done without the originals.”
• Deposit of the retainer directly into Conrady’s operating account and no refund of unearned fees.

These facts supported:

• Rule 1.3 – Lack of diligence and promptness.
• Rule 1.4 – Failure to communicate effectively and respond to reasonable requests for information.
• Rule 1.5 – Acceptance of a substantial fee for work not performed rendered the fee unreasonable.
• Rule 1.15 – Commingling client funds with operating funds and retaining unearned fees violated the safekeeping and refund obligations.

Again, these violations amounted to professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a).

4. Count IV – Geoffrey Arce: Double Neglect and More Trust Violations

With Arce, the pattern continued:

• Payment of $5,952 for two matters: a federal lawsuit and a state replevin case.
• Filing—but never serving—the federal complaint, which was dismissed; Arce was never told.
• Entering an appearance in the replevin case but taking no action, resulting in a default judgment of $17,742.72 against Arce.
• Assurances that he would “figure out” the default but no follow-up.
• Deposit of a $2,500 initial retainer into the operating account instead of an IOLTA trust account.

From this, the Court found:

• Rule 1.3 – Failure to act with reasonable diligence, leading to dismissals and default.
• Rule 1.4 – Inadequate communication about case status and consequences.
• Rule 1.5 – Taking over $5,000 for largely unperformed work was an unreasonable fee.
• Rule 1.15 – Failing to place the retainer in trust until earned violated safekeeping duties.

5. Count V – Navarro and Boggs: Partial Success Followed by Abandonment

The Navarro/Boggs matter illustrates that a brief early success does not cure later neglect. Conrady:

• Successfully obtained dismissal of a probate petition filed by a stepmother in an improper venue.
• Promised by email that he was “finishing up on” pleadings to refile the probate in the proper county.
• Later told the clients he needed additional funds, even though an email reflected a $1,000 retainer balance.
• Never filed the new probate action, never refunded the remaining $1,000, and did not keep the funds segregated in trust.
• Stopped meaningfully communicating, prompting the clients to file a grievance.

The Court found:

• Rule 1.3 – Failing to follow through on the essential objective of initiating a new probate proceeding.
• Rule 1.4 – Ceasing communication with the clients.
• Rule 1.5 – Charging and retaining fees for unperformed work was unreasonable.
• Rule 1.15 – Failure to maintain the unearned retainer in an IOLTA account and to refund it when work ceased.

6. Count II – Margaret Lowery: Credibility and the Clear-and-Convincing Standard

The Court’s analysis of Count II is one of the most legally significant aspects of the opinion.

The OBA alleged that:

• Lowery (a self-employed attorney) retained Conrady in March 2024 to seek emergency injunctive relief in federal court, related to her bar proceedings in Illinois.
• She paid him $10,000 to file a declaratory judgment or temporary restraining order.
• He never filed the action.

However, the Court’s deeper examination revealed:

• Lowery wanted Conrady to seek extraordinary federal relief—either enjoining the Illinois Supreme Court or declaring it a RICO enterprise.
• She herself had been suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court and had previously been disciplined in Oklahoma by reciprocal action (Lowery, 2023 OK 54) for, among other things, making knowingly false statements in a disciplinary proceeding.
• In more recent Illinois proceedings before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IRDC), Lowery:
  • Submitted affidavits claiming sepsis and grave illness to justify continuances, while contemporaneous evidence showed her emailing photos in a hospital gown, smiling and making obscene gestures.
  • Did not appear for a remote hearing despite being allowed to participate electronically.
  • Was later found by the IRDC Hearing Board and Review Board to have made false and reckless statements impugning the integrity of the Illinois Supreme Court and other judges, with a recommendation of disbarment.

The Court noted three critical failures by the OBA:

1. It did not disclose Lowery’s prior discipline or findings of dishonesty—information the Bar itself had litigated in 2023.
2. It did not alert the PRT that aspects of Lowery’s testimony had already been discredited by another disciplinary body (the IRDC).
3. It presented Lowery as a witness without addressing these substantial credibility issues.

Given this context, the Court found Lowery’s testimony “not credible” and explicitly admonished the OBA:

Presenting evidence from witnesses lacking credibility is of no assistance to the disciplinary process, especially when witnesses are presented without any attempt to address known credibility issues.

Because each allegation of misconduct in Count II depended, at least in part, on Lowery’s testimony, the Court held the OBA had not carried its clear-and-convincing burden, notwithstanding the default effect of RGDP Rule 6.4. It therefore declined to find any misconduct arising from Conrady’s representation of Lowery.

This portion of the opinion:

• Reinforces the integrity and rigor of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard in disciplinary matters.
• Clarifies that default admissions do not relieve the Court of its duty to assess credibility and sufficiency of evidence.
• Signals an expectation that Bar counsel act with candor and discernment in their choice and presentation of witnesses.

7. Failure to Cooperate with the Bar (RGDP Rule 5.2)

The Court documented in detail how, over several months, Conrady ignored multiple grievance notices and follow-up letters—some sent by certified mail with return receipts requested—relating to each complainant. RGDP Rule 5.2 states that failure to answer a grievance within twenty days “shall be grounds for discipline.”

However, the Court took a measured approach: while recognizing that such non-cooperation is itself sanctionable, it expressly stated that Respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 5.2 was “not a determinative factor” in the discipline ultimately imposed. Instead, the Court focused on the underlying substantive misconduct.

8. Mitigation: Apology and Cooperation at the Hearing

Notwithstanding his earlier non-cooperation, Conrady did appear at the disciplinary hearing and, in closing, apologized to the Bar, acknowledged his failure to communicate with clients, and described his own conduct as “shameful.” He also agreed to assist the OBA in locating and returning client files and original documents and was, by June 2025, following through on that commitment.

The Court candidly recognized that not every respondent expresses genuine contrition and explicitly credited these actions as mitigating factors. However, the mitigating weight was insufficient to offset the gravity and repetition of the misconduct.

9. Prior Discipline as Enhancement

The Court noted that this was not Conrady’s first disciplinary proceeding. In 2012, he was suspended for two years and one day for serious criminal conduct (“shooting up the home of his ex-girlfriend’s boyfriend”), and he was reinstated in 2017 after satisfying reinstatement criteria.

Under RGDP Rule 6.2 and cases such as Mothershed, prior discipline demonstrates that earlier corrective efforts failed and supports the imposition of more severe sanctions in later proceedings. The Court accordingly treated this history as an aggravator pushing the sanction toward disbarment.

10. Rule 7.7 Reciprocal Discipline: Federal Court Misconduct

Under RGDP Rule 7.7:

• Attorneys must self-report discipline imposed in another jurisdiction within twenty days of a final order (Rule 7.7(a)).
• When such discipline occurs, the OBA must notify the Chief Justice, and the Court may initiate a summary reciprocal proceeding (Rule 7.7(b)).
• Certified copies of the foreign tribunal’s orders constitute the charge and are prima facie evidence of the misconduct described (Rule 7.7(c)).

Here, the Tenth Circuit had stricken Conrady from its admission roster after finding that he:

• Entered an appearance while suspended in that court, and
• Failed to respond to numerous orders and communications about his noncompliance with that court’s rules.

The Court found:

• Conrady did not report this discipline to the OBA, violating Rule 7.7(a).
• The Tenth Circuit’s order was prima facie proof that he knowingly disobeyed court rules and practiced while suspended, supporting violations of:
  • ORPC Rule 3.4(c) – Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.
  • ORPC Rule 5.5 – Practicing law in a jurisdiction contrary to that jurisdiction’s regulation of the profession.
• These predicate violations constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a).

Respondent was ordered to show cause why discipline should not be imposed but filed no response and offered no mitigating evidence. The OBA urged disbarment, and the Court, consistent with Knight and Hyde, exercised its discretion to impose the same level of discipline in Oklahoma as the Tenth Circuit had imposed in its own jurisdiction—disbarment.

11. Sanction Analysis: Why Disbarment?

The Court’s sanction analysis was holistic, focusing on the “totality” of conduct, as framed in Mortenson and Kruger. Several themes drove the result:

• Pattern and persistence: Misconduct was not an isolated lapse but spread across multiple clients, courts (state and federal), and practice areas (probate, civil litigation, business matters).
• Substantial harm: Clients faced large arbitration awards, default judgments, lost claims, and federal fee sanctions—all traceable to Conrady’s neglect and mismanagement.
• Trust account mismanagement: Repeatedly depositing retainers directly into operating accounts, failing to segregate unearned fees, and not refunding when work was not performed.
• Disregard of tribunals: Ignoring show-cause orders, missing hearings, and entering appearances while suspended—behavior that undermines the administration of justice.
• Prior serious discipline: His earlier suspension for violent criminal conduct signaled a history of boundary-crossing and a prior opportunity for rehabilitation that ultimately failed.

Mitigating factors—the apology, some cooperation in returning files, and remorse—were acknowledged but could not counterbalance the weight of the aggravating factors.

The Court concluded that allowing Conrady to continue practicing “poses too great a danger” to the state’s courts and citizens and that disbarment is necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the profession.

C. Impact and Significance

1. Reinforcement of the Clear-and-Convincing Standard and Credibility Scrutiny

The opinion strongly reinforces that:

• Even in default situations under RGDP Rule 6.4, the OBA must still prove misconduct with clear and convincing evidence.
• Witness credibility matters profoundly. Where a complainant’s testimony is undermined by documented dishonesty, prior discipline, or contradictory evidence, the Court will not hesitate to reject that testimony and dismiss the count—even if the PRT and the OBA believed otherwise.

For future cases, this is a message to both the Bar and respondents:

• The Bar must rigorously vet its witnesses, especially those with known credibility impairments, and must fully disclose those issues to the PRT and the Court.
• Respondents can contest credibility and insist that, notwithstanding default, the Court must find reliable, persuasive evidence before imposing discipline.

2. Norms for OBA as Prosecutor: Candor and Case Selection

The Court’s admonition to the OBA is unusual in its explicitness. It reminds Bar counsel that:

• The goal of discipline is protection, not punishment or “score-keeping.”
• Bringing weak counts based on dubious witnesses undermines the process and risks distracting from stronger, well-supported allegations.
• The Bar should proactively address credibility issues—by acknowledging them in pleadings and briefing, corroborating testimony where possible, or choosing not to rely on certain witnesses.

As a practical matter, this opinion is likely to change how the OBA:

• Screens complaining witnesses, particularly those who are themselves lawyers with disciplinary histories.
• Drafts complaints and trial briefs, ensuring that alleged rule violations are explicitly argued and properly supported (as the Court refused to consider unbriefed claims in Count I).

3. Clarifying Obligations Concerning Retainers and IOLTA Accounts

Across Counts III, IV, and V, the Court emphasizes baseline principles of trust accounting:

• Retainers and advance fees are client funds until earned.
• Such funds must be deposited into an IOLTA or trust account, not into a lawyer’s operating account.
• Failure to perform agreed work requires prompt refund of unearned portions.

By repeatedly finding Rule 1.15 violations where retainers were deposited into the operating account and later not refunded, the opinion underscores that this pattern will support serious discipline, especially when combined with other misconduct.

4. Reciprocal Discipline: Self-Reporting and Consequences

For lawyers admitted in multiple jurisdictions, Conrady is a powerful reminder that:

• Self-reporting discipline from other jurisdictions is mandatory under Rule 7.7(a). Failure to do so is itself independent misconduct.
• Orders from federal courts (including the courts of appeals and bankruptcy courts) can and will form the basis for reciprocal discipline under Rule 7.7.
• Ignoring foreign court orders—by not responding to show-cause orders or notices of suspension—may lead directly to disbarment at both the federal and state levels.

This is likely to encourage:

• More vigilant compliance with federal court rules among Oklahoma practitioners.
• Prompt self-reporting of sanctions or suspensions in other jurisdictions to mitigate consequences at home.

5. Use of Federal Court Sanctions to Prove Rule 3.1 Violations

The Court’s reliance on the federal court’s explicit finding that “[a] reasonable attorney would not have brought the federal claims as alleged” is a cautionary note. Bar counsel can and will use such federal findings as powerful evidence of:

• Rule 3.1 violations – Filing non-meritorious or frivolous claims.
• Rule 1.3 violations – If coupled with repeated failures to respond and appear.

Attorneys facing Rule 11 sanctions or severe criticism in federal orders should recognize that such language is likely to surface in any subsequent bar proceeding.

6. Recurrent Misconduct After Prior Suspension

The decision demonstrates that where a lawyer has already been suspended and reinstated, later patterns of neglect and dishonesty will be treated more harshly. The Court sees repeated misconduct as evidence that prior opportunities for rehabilitation have been squandered, making disbarment more likely.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Clear and Convincing” Evidence

“Clear and convincing” is a level of proof higher than “more likely than not” (the typical civil standard) but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the criminal standard). It requires evidence that creates a firm belief or conviction that the claim is true. In bar discipline, this protects lawyers from sanctions based on weak or ambiguous evidence while still allowing the Bar to act decisively in strong cases.

2. ORPC vs. RGDP

• ORPC (Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): Substantive conduct rules—what lawyers may and may not do (e.g., duties of diligence, loyalty, confidentiality, honesty).
• RGDP (Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings): Procedural rules—how complaints are investigated, prosecuted, and adjudicated, and how sanctions are imposed and reviewed.

A violation of an ORPC rule (e.g., mishandling trust funds under Rule 1.15) is “professional misconduct” under ORPC Rule 8.4(a), which then triggers RGDP procedures for sanction.

3. IOLTA and Trust Accounts

An IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts) account is a pooled trust account holding small or transient client funds. Key points:

• Client money—such as retainers and advance fees—must be held separate from the lawyer’s own money until it is earned.
• Placing such funds directly into an operating account is commingling and violates Rule 1.15.
• When a matter ends or the lawyer stops working on it, any unearned funds must be refunded promptly.

4. Retainers and Unreasonable Fees (Rule 1.5)

Under Rule 1.5, a fee is unreasonable if, in light of the work done (or not done), the amount charged cannot be justified. Taking large, nonrefunded retainers for little or no work—as in the Brooks, Arce, and Navarro/Boggs matters—will almost invariably be deemed unreasonable and sanctionable.

5. Reciprocal Discipline (RGDP Rule 7.7)

Reciprocal discipline means that a lawyer disciplined in one jurisdiction (state or federal) may face similar discipline in another jurisdiction where they are licensed. Under Rule 7.7:

• The lawyer must self-report out-of-state discipline.
• The OBA must notify the Supreme Court.
• The foreign order is treated as presumptive proof of the underlying misconduct, which the lawyer can attempt to rebut or mitigate.

6. De Novo Review

“De novo” means “from the beginning” or “afresh.” In this context, the Supreme Court:

• Independently reviews all evidence and does not defer to the PRT’s conclusions.
• May accept, reject, or modify the PRT’s findings and recommended sanction.

7. Disbarment, Suspension, and Reinstatement

• Suspension: A temporary loss of the right to practice law for a fixed period, after which the lawyer may seek reinstatement (sometimes requiring a “two years and one day” period to trigger a full reinstatement process).
• Disbarment: Removal from the roll of attorneys. In Oklahoma, disbarment is not necessarily permanent, but reinstatement is difficult and cannot be sought for at least five years (RGDP Rule 11).
• Reinstatement (Rule 11): Requires a formal petition, a hearing, and proof that the lawyer has been rehabilitated, is fit to practice, and will not pose a future risk.

V. Conclusion

State ex rel. OBA v. Conrady stands out as a thorough and carefully reasoned disciplinary decision with multiple layers of significance:

• It disbars a lawyer whose conduct shows a sustained pattern of neglect, poor judgment, and disregard of court orders, aggravated by prior serious discipline and harmful consequences for multiple clients.
• It clarifies that even in default situations, the OBA must produce credible, clear, and convincing evidence to support each count—demonstrated by the Court’s refusal to discipline Conrady on the Lowery matter.
• It underscores the Bar’s duty to act not merely as an adversary but as a quasi-public prosecutor, candidly addressing the credibility of its own witnesses and focusing on strong, well-supported allegations.
• It reinforces the importance of proper trust accounting, honest and diligent advocacy, and strict compliance with both state and federal court rules.
• It confirms that reciprocal discipline from federal courts is taken seriously, and that failure to self-report such sanctions is independent misconduct.

Taken together, the opinion both protects the public from further harm by Respondent and articulates important procedural and evidentiary safeguards that enhance the fairness, integrity, and credibility of Oklahoma’s attorney disciplinary system.