Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. TWEEDY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma 2000 OK 37 Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY PURPOSE: The state bar disciplines attorneys subject to approval of the state supreme court.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY CAUSE OF ACTION: Disciplinary proceedings against attorney, Craig R. Tweedy.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY FACTS: He was sanctioned for pursuing baseless legal claims and remedies in federal cases. The Court of Appeals disbarred him, the Northern District of Oklahoma suspended him for three years and refused to reinstate him. The Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) found clear and convincing evidence that Tweedy had violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by making frivolous claims, making false or reckless statements on the qualifications or integrity of a judge, and by incompetent representation of clients. The PRT recommended disbarment. (continued)

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY (continued) In the three cases for which he was sanctioned, Tweedy had sued large corporations such as American Airlines and had filed repetitive motions in an overzealous representation of his client and had accused the federal judiciary and his opponents of collusion and wrongdoing.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY ISSUE: Whether the PRT’s recommendation of disbarment is the appropriate sanction for respondent Tweedy’s conduct.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY HOLDING: No. A six-month suspension and payment of costs of the disciplinary proceedings ($1,340.25) is the appropriate remedy.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OKLAHOMA BAR v. TWEEDY REASONING: The court concluded that past disbarments involved conduct of a more serious nature than that shown here. “In imposing discipline, our purpose is not to punish the involved attorney, but to inquire into his continued fitness to practice law with a view to safeguarding the public, the courts and the legal profession.” The court found that Tweedy consistently cooperated throughout the proceeding, and had practiced law without any further grievances. Both these factors tend to mitigate the severity of the punishment.