Supreme Court of Oklahoma | Feb. 2, 2022
Decisions
IN THE MATTER OF REINSTATEMENT OF SIDNEY WADE JONES
2022 OK 12, SCBD No. 7126, Rule 11
Feb. 1, 2022
¶0 Petitioner seeks reinstatement to the Oklahoma Bar Association after his voluntary resignation form the roll of attorneys in 2011. Petitioner submitted his resignation when he pursued a different career path and did not plan to return to the practice of law. When he resigned, Petitioner was not under investigation by the OBA for any ethical violation; he has never been disciplined or disbarred. Petitioner was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in 1997 and practiced law in Oklahoma until his resignation. Petitioner currently works as the Firm Administrator in his son’s law firm but he now desires to resume the practice of law in Oklahoma in order to expand the available legal services to firm clients.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, EX. REL., OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION V. WAGNER
2022 OK 13, No. SCBD-7041 (Disciplinary Rule 7)
Feb. 1, 2022
¶0 Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law as a member of the Oklahoma Bar Association. A jury found respondent guilty of a misdemeanor, false reporting of a crime, and respondent was fined $500.00. The Judgment and Sentence of respondent’s misdemeanor conviction was filed in this Court by the Oklahoma Bar Association for the purpose of this Court imposing summary discipline based upon respondent’s conviction. We hold: (1) Two filings herein previously sealed by the court shall remain sealed; and (2) Respondent’s conviction does not demonstrate unfitness to practice law and the Oklahoma Bar Association’s application for summary discipline is denied.
MENG v. RAHIMI
2022 OK 11, 119051; Consol. w/119196
Decided 02/01/2022
¶0 Tenant petitioned for certiorari review of a certified interlocutory order urging that the trial court erred in failing to consider the affirmative defense of impracticability or frustration of purpose to excuse the nonpayment of rent for a parcel of commercial property and awarding past due rent and possession to Landlords. The trial court did not allow Tenant to present evidence in support of her affirmative defense. The trial court entered an interim Order awarding to the Landlords possession of the premises and five months of past due rent in the amount of $6,400 and reserved issues relating to damages and liability for ongoing rent for future consideration. The trial court certified the judgment as an interlocutory order for immediate appeal. We hold that the trial court erred by not allowing Tenant to present evidence relating to her affirmative defense of impracticability or frustration of purpose. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A CERTIFIED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH OPINION.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF S.A.H.
2022 OK 10, 118986; Comp. w/119218
Decided 02/01/2022
¶0 Minor child’s cousin appealed two district court decisions that (1) denied the cousin’s motion to vacate an adoption of the minor child to her paternal grandparents and (2) dismissed the cousin’s claim for guardianship due to the adoption. This Court retained the appeals. We affirm the district courts’ decisions. The cousin had no statutory or constitutional rights to custody of the minor child to warrant vacating an adoption consented to by the minor child’s father.