State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bransgrove, 1999 OK 93 (Okla. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Bransgrove, 1999 OK 93 (Okla. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
119 citation events (116 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: WAITS v. VIERSEN OIL & GAS CO. (oklacivapp, 2019-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WAITS v. VIERSEN OIL & GAS CO.
Okla. Civ. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Coop., Inc. , 2016 OK CIV APP 39, 377 P.3d 163, all cite Professional Credit for its statement that an asymmetric fee provision may violate equal-access protections, not its affirmative relief/prevailing party rule. ¶23 ( Payne v. Dewitt , 1999 OK 93, ¶ 1, 995 P.2d 1088, involved the question of whether a party could be barred by court order from a subsequent damages hearing after the court ordered default judgment as a sanction. ¶24 ( Stroud Nat.
examined Cited as authority (rule) ONLINE OIL, INC. v. CO&G PRODUCTION GROUP, LLC (4×)
Okla. Civ. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Payne v. DeWitt , 1999 OK 93, ¶ 9, 995 P.2d 1088 ("[T]he trial court's discretion, while broad, is not unbridled.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Curtis
Okla. Civ. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Payne v. DeWitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 8, n. 6 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1092, n. 6 .
discussed Cited "see" IN RE ADOPTION OF K.P.M.A. (2×)
Okla. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, n. 6 , 995 P.2d 1088 .
discussed Cited "see" IN RE ADOPTION OF K.P.M.A. (2×)
Okla. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Payne v. Dewitt , 1999 OK 93, n. 6 , 995 OK 1088 .
discussed Cited "see" Root v. SDI of Owasso
Okla. Civ. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93 , 995 P.2d 1088 (upholding the trial court's declaration of liability and fee award sanction for the defendant's failure to appear at court-ordered deposition spanning a five-month period of time and offering no explanation for his absence).
cited Cited "see" Luetkemeyer v. Magnusson
Okla. Civ. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 18 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1096 (trial court judgment regarding attorney fees will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion).
discussed Cited "see" Gilbert v. Security Finance Corp. of Oklahoma
Okla. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
Motors Acceptance Corp., 1980 OK 164, ¶ 14 , 619 P.2d 620, 623-624 (There may be more than one final, appealable order even though there is but one judgment.). [102] Stites v. DUIT Construction Co., 1995 OK 69, ¶ 25 , 903 P.2d 293, 301 ; see 12 O.S.2001, § 990A(A). [103] Broadwater v. Courtney, 1991 OK 39, ¶ 6 , 809 P.2d 1310, 1312 . [104] 23 O.S.2001, § 103. [105] Beard v. Richards, 1991 OK 117, ¶ 14 , 820 P.2d 812, 816 . [106] Id. ¶ 15, 820 P.2d at 816. [107] Payne v. DeWitt 1999 OK 93, ¶ 18 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1096 (addressing an attorney fee award as a sanction pursuant to 12 O.S.2001…
discussed Cited "see" Mehdipour v. State Ex Rel. Department of Corrections
Okla. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 1088 ; McDaneld v. Lynn Hickey Dodge, Inc., 1999 OK 30, ¶ 7 , 979 P.2d 252 ; Gaylord Entertainment Co. v. Thompson, 1998 OK 30, ¶ 21 , 958 P.2d 128 [Recognizing that federal case law provides a logical framework for determining the scope of the protection guaranteed by Oklahoma constitutional law.].
discussed Cited "see" Conterez v. O'DONNELL
Okla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See in this connection Payne v. DeWitt, 1999 OK 93 ¶ 8 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1092 (§ 3237(B)(2) of the Oklahoma Discovery Code follows the terms of FRCP 37 in describing the range of sanctions a court is permitted to employ).
cited Cited "see" Patterson v. Beall
Okla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See in this connection Payne v. DeWitt, 1999 OK 93, ¶ 14 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1090 . .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Behr Process Corp.
Wash. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1091, 1094-95 (Okla.1999) (trial court's default order on liability was appropriate but the court erred in precluding defendant from cross-examining witnesses, objecting to the introduction of evidence, or otherwise participating in the bench hearing on damages); B.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smith v. Behr Process Corp.
Wash. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Payne v. Dewitt, 1999 OK 93 , 995 P.2d 1088, 1091, 1094-95 (trial court’s default order on liability was appropriate but the court erred in precluding defendant from cross-examining witnesses, objecting to the introduction of evidence, or otherwise participating in the bench hearing on damages); B.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
Laurence Alan BRANSGROVE, Respondent
SCBD 4383.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Sep 29, 1998.
1999 OK 93
1998 Okla. LEXIS 102
1998 WL 665848
Dan Murdock, Janis Hubbard, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma Bar Association., Laurence Alan Bransgrove, Amarillo, Pro Se.
Hodges, Kauger, Summers, Simms, Hargrave, Opala, Wilson, Watt, Lavender.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
HODGES, Justice.

¶ 1 Laurence Alan Bransgrove, Respondent is before this Court in a summary disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) which pursuant to the reciprocal disbarment provision found at Rule 7.7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. Okla. Stat. tit. 5, ch. 1, app. 1-A (1991). Rule 7.7 provides:

(a) It is the duty of a lawyer licensed in Oklahoma to notify the General Counsel whenever discipline for lawyer misconduct has been imposed upon him/her in another jurisdiction, within twenty (20) days of the final order of discipline, and failure to report shall itself be grounds for discipline.
(b) When a lawyer has been adjudged guilty of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding, except contempt proceedings, by the highest court of another State or by a Federal Court, the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association may cause to be[*541] transmitted to the Chief Justice a certified copy of such adjudication and the Chief Justice shall direct the lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court at a time certain, not less than ten (10) days after mailing of notice, and show cause, if any he/she has, why he/she should not be disciplined. The documents shall constitute the charge and shall be prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described. The lawyer may submit a certified copy of transcript of the evidence taken in the trial tribunal of the other jurisdiction to support his/her claim that the finding therein was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline which may be imposed upon him/ her, a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The General Counsel may respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting a recommendation of discipline.

Thus, this provision makes disciplinary action in another jurisdiction the basis for this Court’s discipline of a lawyer.

¶2 Respondent lives in Amarillo, Texas and was licensed to practice in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. He was disbarred this year in both Texas and Kansas. The OBA has filed certified copies of both orders of disbarment. In each instance, Respondent resigned pending disciplinary proceedings.

¶3 In its order disbarring Respondent, the Texas Supreme Court accepted his resignation and found the allegations of professional misconduct against him to be “conclusively established for all purposes.” A Statement of Misconduct by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel described six pending complaints involving Respondent’s neglect of matters entrusted to him, failure to communicate with clients and inform them of the status of legal matters for which he was retained, and failure to respond or to timely respond to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. In addition, one of the complaints involved Respondent’s failure to respond to discovery requests, failure to comply with court deadlines, and failure to honor orders compelling discovery. Another of the complaints involved Respondent’s failure to forward a client’s money to the court in reference to her citation for speeding.

¶4 Respondent also resigned his membership in the Kansas Bar pending disciplinary proceedings. The Kansas Supreme Court “examin[ed] the files of the office of the Disciplinary Administrator” which contained a complaint alleging “client abandonment during litigation, billing fraud, failure to return client files, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.” It then determined that “the surrender of respondent’s license should be accepted and that respondent should be disbarred.”

¶ 5 Respondent is now before this Court urging that some disciplinary action short of disbarment should be applied. He reasons that, because his resignations from the Texas and Kansas Bars were motivated in large part by his poor health, his improved health should now afford him the opportunity to refute the allegations in the Texas and Kansas complaints. [1] Respondent fails to acknowledge, however, that he was not disbarred in Texas and Kansas for being ill. Rather, he was disbarred based on the unethical acts he perpetrated upon his clients and the courts.

¶ 6 Respondent may not deny the effect of his decision not to contest the charges made against him in Texas and Kansas by arguing now that there has been no eviden-tiary hearing. Respondent’s resignation pending disciplinary proceedings and the resulting impositions of disbarment are deemed an admission of the facts alleged. Under Rule 7.7, they constitute “prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described.”

¶ 7 Respondent has presented nothing which supports a claim that the findings of the Texas and Kansas Supreme Courts, adjudging him guilty of misconduct, “does not[*542] furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma” under Rule 7.7 Nor has Respondent offered “evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline” under that rule. The acts upon which Respondent stands disbarred in Texas and Kansas warrant disbarment in Oklahoma. It is so ordered.

RESPONDENT DISBARRED.

¶ 8 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., SIMMS, HARGRAVE, OPALA, WILSON, WATT, JJ., concur. ¶ 9 LAVENDER, J., concurs in result.
1

. Initially, the OBA filed only a certified copy of the Kansas disbarment. A certified copy of the Texas disbarment was submitted after Respondent had filed his response to this Court's order directing him to show cause why he should not be disciplined in Oklahoma. As a result, this Court provided Respondent the opportunity to specifically address the Texas disbarment. Respondent failed to file a response.