State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Allford
Oklahoma Supreme Court
152 P.3d 190 (2006)
Richard Mackey hired lawyer Patricia Allford (defendant) to probate his parents’ estates. Allford did not keep appointments with Mackey, return many of his calls, or explain matters to him. Further, after nine years, the probate was still not complete. Mackey fired Allford, but she refused to return his file, eventually convincing Mackey to let her continue working. The same thing happened about a year later. A year after that, Mackey filed a grievance with the state bar (plaintiff). The bar sent Allford multiple letters setting out the allegations and asking for her response. Allford consistently responded late and did not address the allegations in her responses. Allford then failed to show up for a deposition scheduled by the bar. When the bar served Allford with a subpoena for a second deposition, Allford convinced the sheriff’s department employees to falsify the service date to make it look as though she had not been served in time. Allford also submitted an affidavit from Mackey claiming that he was withdrawing his grievance and wanted Allford to finish the probate matter. After several continuances of the disciplinary proceedings, Allford finally completed Mackey’s probate matter, approximately 13 years after starting it. Allford then signed a stipulated statement of facts confessing to her misconduct in handling Mackey’s matter and during the disciplinary process. Based on this statement, the bar recommended that Allford receive a private reprimand. However, at the hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal (tribunal), Allford made statements that were inconsistent with her stipulated statement of facts, refused to admit to many of the matters, refused to accept responsibility, and did not show remorse for her misconduct. Allford also admittedly made dishonest statements under oath to the tribunal. The tribunal ultimately recommended that Allford be given a public reprimand. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the recommendations in order to make a final decision.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Colbert, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 708,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.