STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALINT

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALINT
Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement
  • Help
  • Contact Us
  • e-payments
  • Careers
OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALINT
  1. Previous Case
  2. Top Of Index
  3. This Point in Index
  4. Citationize
  5. Next Case
  6. Print Only

STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALINT
2021 OK 51
Case Number: SCBD-7056
Decided: 10/18/2021

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Cite as: 2021 OK 51, __ P.3d __

NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
v.
ANDREW DAVID BALINT, Respondent.

ORDER

On June 15, 2021, an Order Granting Motion to Strike Hearing was entered by the Professional Responsibility Tribunal in this matter. The June 16, 2021 hearing was stricken.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that further proceedings in this matter are hereby suspended until further Order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Immediate Interim Suspension entered on May 17, 2021 remains in effect.

DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE on October 18, 2021.

/S/CHIEF JUSTICE

Darby, C.J., Kane, V.C.J., Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, Gurich, Rowe, Kuehn, JJ., concur;

Combs, J., dissents (by separate writing).

Combs, J., dissenting:

1 I respectfully dissent from this Court''s suspension of further proceedings under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, due to the issues raised in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Balint, No. OBAD-2343 (Okla. filed Aug. 5, 2021).

¶2 Unless Respondent is found to be mentally incapable of defending or assisting his counsel in defending against the charges, this Rule 6 proceeding should proceed. In these two proceedings, neither the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (PRT) nor this Court have made that finding, and Respondent certainly hasn''t admitted such. Consequently, the PRT should--at the very least--hear evidence of any conduct or neglect of duty in respect to the affairs of a client that would justify the imposition of discipline, so that it can make a fully informed recommendation to this Court about the disposition of both proceedings.

¶3 I also dissent from any suspension of the Rule 6 proceeding that fails to impose a schedule for semiannual reports from the parties on Respondent''s status. The suspension of these proceedings should not be indefinite and should not leave Respondent''s clients who have filed grievances in the lurch.

Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
Cite Name Level
None Found.
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
None Found.







oscn

EMAIL: webmaster@oscn.net
Oklahoma Judicial Center
2100 N Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

courts
  • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
  • Court of Criminal Appeals
  • Court of Civil Appeals
  • District Courts
decisions
  • New Decisions
  • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
  • Court of Criminal Appeals
  • Court of Civil Appeals
programs
  • The Sovereignty Symposium
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Early Settlement Mediation
  • Children's Court Improvement Program (CIP)
  • Judicial Nominating Commission
  • Certified Courtroom Interpreters
  • Certified Shorthand Reporters
  • Accessibility ADA
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Accessibility ADA