## Facts

- Oklahoma attorney John Whitworth’s methamphetamine and alcohol addiction severely damaged his health, family life, and law practice, contributing to client neglect and other misconduct.
- Whitworth developed serious liver disease, became homeless, and went extended periods without seeing his two sons.
- After Whitworth failed to respond to misconduct allegations, the Oklahoma Bar Association set a disciplinary hearing to suspend him from practice.
- A few months before that hearing, blood tests showed Whitworth’s liver condition was worsening and would soon require hospitalization; he contacted his mother and admitted his illness was tied to addiction.
- Whitworth moved in with his father, who helped him recover physically.
- On the way to the disciplinary hearing, Whitworth’s son asked whether he would keep his law license; Whitworth replied, “If there’s any justice in the world, son, no. No. We’re going to go down and we’re going to tell them the truth.”
- At the hearing, Whitworth testified candidly about his addictions and conceded he could not practice law at that time.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended Whitworth for two years based on unfitness and misconduct; the suspension was made effective almost two years before the hearing date.
- During the suspension, Whitworth did not practice law, participated extensively in Alcoholics Anonymous, and earned continuing legal education credits.
- Approximately four years after the effective date of suspension, Whitworth petitioned for reinstatement.
- The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) held an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses described Whitworth’s candor about his addiction and suspension and his substantial involvement in AA.
- After learning he had a daughter, Whitworth represented himself pro se in a paternity matter, obtained custody, and rented a home where he lived with all three children.
- Whitworth presented a structured plan to return to practice gradually, continuing weekend work at Lowe’s while taking limited legal work from local attorneys to maintain stability for his family.
- Whitworth testified he remained sober, accepted full responsibility for his past conduct as necessary to recovery, and stated that relapse was not “part of the equation”; he also passed random drug tests and repaid the costs from the prior proceedings.
- The PRT recommended reinstatement, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether Whitworth proved by clear and convincing evidence that he had been rehabilitated and presently possessed the good moral character, competence, and learning in the law required for reinstatement.
2. Whether reinstatement would be consistent with protecting the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted Whitworth’s petition for reinstatement.
- The Court found Whitworth met his burden of proving rehabilitation and present fitness by clear and convincing evidence.
- After an independent review of the record, the Court accepted the PRT’s recommendation and concluded reinstatement would not harm the public interest or the profession.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer seeking reinstatement after suspension bears the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, present good moral character, competence, and rehabilitation.
- Reinstatement is not granted unless the applicant shows that returning to practice will not endanger the public, damage the courts, or bring disrepute on the legal profession.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews reinstatement proceedings de novo; the PRT’s findings and recommendation are considered but are not controlling.
- In evaluating rehabilitation, the Court may consider sustained and verifiable sobriety, meaningful participation in recovery programs, negative drug-test results, frank acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and demonstrated personal stability.
- Compliance during suspension—such as refraining from practice, completing continuing legal education, and paying assessed costs—supports a showing of present fitness to resume practice.
- Misconduct tied to substance abuse does not permanently bar reinstatement when the applicant proves long-term recovery and current ability to meet professional duties.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reinstated John Whitworth because the record, reviewed independently, showed by clear and convincing evidence that he had achieved sustained recovery from methamphetamine and alcohol addiction, complied with his suspension, demonstrated candor and accountability, stabilized his family and employment situation, and could return to practice without unacceptable risk to clients, the courts, or the reputation of the bar.


In the Matter of Reinstatement of Whitworth, 2011 Okla. 79, 261 P.3d 1173 (2011)