State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Johnson

Summary

The Court found clear and convincing evidence that the respondent repeatedly neglected client matters, failed to communicate, charged fees without completing promised work, failed to use a written contingent-fee agreement, failed to expedite litigation, and repeatedly failed to respond to bar grievances. It held that the allegations were deemed admitted because the respondent failed to answer, but still required admissible clear and convincing evidence to establish misconduct for purposes of discipline. The Court imposed a two-year-and-one-day suspension, assessed costs, and required compliance with reinstatement-related requirements.