## Facts

- John P. Sopher, an Oklahoma attorney, was consulted by a former secretary about (1) a municipal lewd-act charge and (2) a child-custody/visitation dispute involving the child being taken to California.
- Sopher agreed to represent her on both matters for a $700 retainer; she paid $30 and said she would pay the remainder later.
- As the woman stood to leave, Sopher came around his desk, put his arm around her, pulled the top of her blouse outward, looked down it, and commented, “Don’t expose yourself.”
- The woman’s mother, who was waiting in the reception area, was then motioned into Sopher’s office; Sopher similarly pulled the top of her blouse outward and looked down it.
- The woman later hired different counsel.
- Sopher acknowledged the conduct was inappropriate but asserted he did not think it would be offensive based on what he described as a previously “playful” relationship.
- In stipulations accepted by a Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel, Sopher admitted his conduct violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Sopher’s sexualized, unwanted physical contact during a professional consultation constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Rule 8.4(d).
2. What discipline was appropriate given the admitted misconduct and stipulated recommendation.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court approved the parties’ stipulations of fact and conclusions of law, including the Rule 8.4(d) violation.
- The Court accepted the trial panel’s agreed recommendation and imposed a public reprimand.
- The final disposition was: Respondent publicly reprimanded.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer commits professional misconduct by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. (Okla. R. Prof’l Conduct 8.4(d).)
- Sexualized, non-consensual physical intrusion directed at a client (and a client’s relative) in the course of a legal consultation constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- In attorney-discipline matters, the Oklahoma Supreme Court independently reviews the record but may follow a tribunal’s recommendation when supported by stipulated facts and admissions.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court disciplined Sopher with a public reprimand after accepting stipulated facts showing that his sexualized physical contact with a client and her mother during a consultation violated Rule 8.4(d) as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.


State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Sopher, 852 P.2d 707 (Okla. 1993)