## Facts

- Richard Mackey hired Oklahoma lawyer Patricia Ann Allford to probate his parents’ estates and paid her $750 on March 30, 1992.
- Allford repeatedly failed to keep appointments with Mackey, did not return many of his calls, and did not adequately explain the status of the probate matters.
- After about nine years, the probates were still not completed. On October 16, 2001, Mackey terminated Allford and requested his file.
- Allford refused to return the file and persuaded Mackey to let her continue the representation.
- About a year later, Mackey again terminated Allford and requested his file; Allford again refused to return the file and convinced him to continue with her.
- Mackey filed a written grievance with the Oklahoma Bar Association on April 9, 2004.
- The Bar sent Allford letters requesting a written response to the allegations. Allford repeatedly responded late and her responses did not substantively address the allegations.
- The Bar noticed Allford’s deposition for July 29, 2004. Allford did not appear, and called Bar counsel after the scheduled time stating she did not attend because Mackey did not want her to.
- When the Bar issued a subpoena for a second deposition and had it served through the Hughes County Sheriff’s Office, Allford went to the sheriff’s office and persuaded employees to falsify the service date so it would appear she was not timely served.
- Allford submitted an affidavit from Mackey stating he wished to withdraw the grievance and wanted Allford to complete the probate work.
- After several continuances in the disciplinary matter, Allford completed the probate work approximately 13 years after she was retained.
- Allford signed a stipulated statement of facts acknowledging misconduct; based on the stipulation, the Bar recommended a private reprimand.
- At the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal, Allford made statements inconsistent with the stipulation, refused to accept responsibility, showed little remorse, and admittedly made dishonest statements under oath.
- The Tribunal recommended a public reprimand, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the matter to determine the final discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence showed that Allford violated professional duties through prolonged neglect, poor communication, failure to cooperate with the Bar’s investigation, and dishonest conduct (including falsifying subpoena service information and giving untruthful sworn testimony).
2. What discipline was necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession, given the parties’ requested private reprimand and the Tribunal’s recommended public reprimand.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court found misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence, including prolonged delay and neglect in the probate matters, failure to respond properly and timely to Bar inquiries, failure to appear for a scheduled deposition, and dishonest conduct during the disciplinary process.
- The court conducted de novo review and stated it was not bound by the parties’ stipulations or by the Tribunal’s recommendation.
- The court rejected the requested private reprimand and the Tribunal’s recommended public reprimand as insufficient.
- The court suspended Allford from the practice of law for six months and ordered her to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over lawyer discipline and reviews the record de novo, making its own findings and determining the appropriate sanction.
- Attorney misconduct in disciplinary matters must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
- A lawyer’s unreasonable delay and lack of diligence in handling a client matter violate duties of competent and diligent representation.
- A lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed and respond to reasonable requests for information; persistent failures to communicate constitute professional misconduct.
- A lawyer must timely and truthfully respond to the Bar’s lawful demands for information and must appear as required in disciplinary investigations; avoidance and nonresponsive communications aggravate misconduct.
- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—such as manipulating service information for a subpoena and making untruthful statements under oath—warrants significantly more serious discipline than a reprimand.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended Patricia Ann Allford for six months and assessed costs because she delayed a probate representation for roughly thirteen years, repeatedly failed to communicate with her client, did not cooperate with Bar counsel’s investigation, and engaged in serious dishonesty during the disciplinary process, including falsifying subpoena service information and giving untruthful sworn testimony.


State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Allford, 152 P.3d 190 (2006)