Reinstatement Without Re-Examination: Active Out-of-State Practice Can Rebut Rule 11.5(c)’s Five-Year Presumption

I. Introduction

In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Brian Keith Melton, 2026 OK 33 (Okla. May 5, 2026), is an Oklahoma Supreme Court attorney-licensing decision arising under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP). The petitioner, Brian Keith Melton, previously practiced in Oklahoma, voluntarily resigned his Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) membership in good standing in 2020, remained actively licensed and practicing in Colorado, and later sought reinstatement in Oklahoma after returning to Tulsa.

The core issues were whether Melton proved—by clear and convincing evidence—(1) good moral character, (2) no unauthorized practice of law in Oklahoma while resigned, (3) sufficient professional competence and learning in the law (including whether he must retake the Oklahoma Bar Exam under Rule 11.5(c)), and (4) compliance with other reinstatement requirements.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Court granted the petition for reinstatement, adopting the Professional Responsibility Tribunal’s (PRT) unanimous recommendation and noting the OBA did not oppose reinstatement. Applying de novo review, the Court found Melton proved:

  • Good moral character through extensive character testimony and lack of disciplinary history;
  • No unauthorized practice in Oklahoma, supported by a Tulsa County Court Clerk affidavit and OBA investigation;
  • Ongoing competence, rebutting any need to retake the bar exam by showing continued active Colorado practice and education;
  • Compliance with remaining administrative requirements (MCLE status at resignation; dues owed upon reinstatement).

The Court ordered reinstatement upon payment of costs and current-year dues, and specifically assessed $189.33 in costs.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Although the decision is fact-specific, it is structured around established reinstatement doctrine and reiterates the Court’s constitutional role in bar regulation. The following precedents framed the Court’s approach:

  • In re Reinstatement of Rickey, 2019 OK 36, 442 P.3d 571
    Influence: Rickey supplies two key pillars repeated here: (1) the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s “nondelegable, constitutional obligation” over licensure and discipline, and (2) the standard of review—PRT findings are given “great weight” but are not binding; the Court reviews the record de novo. Rickey also anchors the Court’s four-factor focus in reinstatement matters without prior discipline and is cited on the Rule 11.5(c) competency presumption.
  • In re Restatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9, 345 P.3d. 1118
    Influence: Cited for the same structural proposition as Rickey: the Court’s constitutional and exclusive authority over regulation of the practice of law. Its role in this opinion is jurisdictional and institutional—reinforcing that ultimate responsibility cannot be delegated to the PRT.
  • In re Reinstatement of Gill, 2016 OK 61, 376 P.3d 200
    Influence: Gill is used to support the four-question inquiry (moral character, unauthorized practice, competence, and other requirements) for reinstatement cases like this one where no prior discipline is at issue.
  • In re Reinstatement of 09९९, 2016 OK 58, 382 P.3d 501
    Influence: This case is cited for the Rule 11.5(c) framework: if a license has been inactive for five years or more, there is a rebuttable presumption the applicant must retake and pass the bar exam, but the applicant must be given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate maintained competency through continued study.

In combination, these cases do not change the doctrinal test; rather, they supply the governing framework the Court applies to Melton’s evidence—especially the relationship between PRT recommendations and the Court’s independent judgment, and the “rebuttable presumption” mechanism for competency.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning tracks the four-factor reinstatement inquiry (explicitly tied to Rule 11.4 and Rule 11.5, RGDP), with the burden on the applicant to provide “stronger proof” than required for initial bar admission.

1. Moral Fitness

The Court emphasizes the absence of disciplinary history in Oklahoma or Colorado, and the affirmative showing of integrity through: (i) eleven letters of support, (ii) seven live character witnesses, and (iii) professional testimony describing Melton as a trusted source of ethical guidance. This combination of evidence satisfied the “clear and convincing” requirement for moral character.

2. Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

Rule 11.5(b) requires proof the applicant did not engage in unauthorized Oklahoma practice during resignation, and Rule 11.1(a)(2) requires affidavits from court clerks in counties of residence. The Court relies on the Tulsa County Court Clerk affidavit and the OBA investigator’s testimony to find no evidence of Oklahoma court practice while resigned, meeting the clear-and-convincing standard.

3. Professional Competence and the Bar-Exam Presumption

The decision’s most practically significant reasoning concerns Rule 11.5(c). The Court acknowledges:

  • If the license has been inactive for five years or more, a rebuttable presumption arises that the applicant will be required to take and pass the bar exam.
  • Before requiring a retake, the applicant must have a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate maintained competence through continued study of the law.

Melton rebutted the need for re-examination by showing sustained legal practice in Colorado as an active member in good standing, ongoing continuing legal education compliance, and targeted Oklahoma CLE hours undertaken for reinstatement. On these facts, the Court held he was not required to retake the Oklahoma Bar Examination.

4. Other Requirements

The Court confirms administrative compliance: MCLE compliance at resignation, no dues arrearage beyond the current year upon reinstatement, and payment of proceeding costs. Reinstatement was conditioned on paying costs and dues, consistent with Rule 11’s remedial structure.

C. Impact

While the opinion does not announce a brand-new doctrinal test, it has meaningful precedential and practical impact in three ways:

  1. Clarifies how the Court applies Rule 11.5(c) in “good standing resignation” cases. The opinion illustrates that an applicant who remained continuously active and compliant in another jurisdiction—and who supplements that record with Oklahoma-focused study/CLE—can successfully rebut the presumed need to retake the Oklahoma Bar Exam.
  2. Reinforces evidentiary expectations for UPL proof. The Court’s reliance on a county clerk affidavit and corroborating investigator testimony signals what a clean, persuasive UPL showing looks like in reinstatement records.
  3. Confirms the PRT’s role as influential but not dispositive. Even with unanimous PRT recommendations and non-opposition from the OBA, the Court expressly reiterates its independent, de novo responsibility—important for future litigants who may wrongly assume PRT unanimity guarantees the outcome.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Rule 11 reinstatement: A process for returning to OBA membership after resignation (or other status change), requiring proof of character, competence, and compliance.
  • Clear and convincing evidence: A heightened civil standard requiring evidence that produces a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations—more than “more likely than not,” less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • Rebuttable presumption (Rule 11.5(c)): A default rule (here, that a bar exam is required after five years inactive) that can be overcome by sufficient contrary proof (here, continued practice and learning).
  • De novo review: The Supreme Court reviews the record independently rather than merely checking whether the PRT made a reasonable decision.
  • Unauthorized practice of law: Performing legal services in Oklahoma without being authorized/licensed to do so; reinstatement applicants must affirmatively prove they avoided it while resigned.
  • MCLE: Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; compliance is an administrative condition relevant to eligibility and good standing.

V. Conclusion

2026 OK 33 applies established Rule 11 reinstatement principles to a modern mobility fact pattern—an Oklahoma lawyer who resigned in good standing, kept actively practicing and compliant in another state, and returned seeking reinstatement. The Court’s key takeaway is practical: sustained out-of-state active practice and documented continuing legal education can satisfy the competency requirement and, in appropriate cases, can rebut Rule 11.5(c)’s presumption that an applicant must retake the Oklahoma Bar Examination. At the same time, the opinion reaffirms the Court’s independent constitutional duty to regulate licensure, regardless of PRT recommendations or the OBA’s litigation posture.