## Facts

- Chris Chaney hired Oklahoma attorney Brandon Duane Watkins to pursue claims arising from the car-accident death of Chaney’s wife, Jeannie Chaney.
- At Jeannie’s death, she was survived by Chaney and three children: one adult child and two minor children.
- The matter settled for $100,000, which Watkins deposited into his client trust account in June 2014.
- Under Oklahoma law governing the distribution at issue, Chaney was entitled to one-half of Jeannie’s estate and each child was entitled to one-sixth.
- After delay, Watkins paid Chaney and the adult child from the settlement proceeds.
- Watkins did not timely pay the two minor children their shares and never established separate trust accounts or other required arrangements to safeguard the minors’ funds.
- In June 2015, Chaney terminated Watkins and requested that Watkins pay the remaining heirs; the minors still were not paid.
- In November 2016, Chaney filed a grievance with the Oklahoma Bar Association; at that time, Watkins still had not paid the minors.
- Trust-account records showed that between July 2014 and February 2017 Watkins made numerous withdrawals and payments from the client trust account inconsistent with holding client funds, including payments on two loans for which Watkins was the debtor and repeated transfers to his personal account.
- After investigation, the Oklahoma Bar Association filed a formal complaint (RGDP Rule 6), alleging violations of RGDP 1.3 and ORPC Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, 3.2, and 8.4(c), including conversion or misappropriation of client funds, neglect, and failure to communicate.
- A Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel found clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, including misappropriation and neglect, and recommended suspension for two years and one day plus costs.

## Issues

1. Did the Oklahoma Bar Association prove by clear and convincing evidence that Watkins violated the ORPC and RGDP through his handling of the settlement proceeds and his representation of Chaney and the heirs?
2. If violations were proven, what discipline was appropriate in light of the nature and duration of the misconduct and Watkins’s prior disciplinary history?

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court exercised its original and exclusive jurisdiction over attorney discipline and reviewed the record de novo.
- The Court found clear and convincing evidence that Watkins committed simple conversion of client funds by failing to safeguard and promptly deliver settlement proceeds owed to the minor heirs, and by using trust-account funds for personal purposes.
- The Court also found Watkins neglected the matter and failed to adequately communicate with his client concerning payment of the remaining heirs.
- Although the trial panel characterized the trust-account conduct as misappropriation, the Court classified the proven conduct as simple conversion for purposes of Oklahoma disciplinary analysis.
- The Court suspended Watkins from the practice of law for two years and one day and granted the Bar’s motion to assess costs.

## Legal Principles

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court has original, exclusive, and nondelegable authority to regulate and discipline lawyers; tribunal findings are advisory and the Court independently determines facts, rule violations, and sanction on de novo review.
- The Bar bears the burden to prove alleged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.
- A lawyer must safeguard client property held in trust and promptly deliver funds to those entitled to receive them; unauthorized use of trust funds or prolonged failure to disburse funds due constitutes conversion even without proof of permanent deprivation.
- Oklahoma disciplinary decisions distinguish “misappropriation” from “simple conversion” as sanction categories; not every trust-account misuse is treated as misappropriation in that framework.
- Prolonged nonpayment of beneficiaries, failure to set up required protections for minors’ funds, failure to return calls or respond to inquiries, and delay inconsistent with a client’s objectives support findings of neglect and communication violations.
- A suspension of two years and one day requires a reinstatement proceeding before the lawyer may return to practice, reflecting the seriousness of trust-account and client-protection violations.

## Conclusion

In this original disciplinary proceeding, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Brandon Duane Watkins engaged in simple conversion of client funds, neglect, and failure to communicate after depositing a wrongful-death settlement into his trust account, paying some heirs while leaving minor heirs unpaid for years, failing to establish separate protections for the minors’ shares, and making personal-use withdrawals from the trust account; the Court imposed a two-years-and-one-day suspension and assessed costs.


State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Watkins, 461 P.3d 174 (2019)