Legal Opinion

In re the Reinstatement of Bodnar

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided February 9, 2016No. SCBD No. 6202PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

T1 The dispositive questions before this Court are whether the Applicant has complied with Rule 11.1(a) of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (ORGDP), 5 0.98.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, r. 11.1(a), and whether he has presented clear- and-convincing evidence that he possesses the competency and learning necessary to be reinstated to the roll of attorneys and membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) and has not engaged in the practice of law since his resignation from the OBA. We answer all questions in the negative and find that the Applicant failed to follow Rule 11.1(a)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Matter of Reinstatement of KaminsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
  2. In Re the Reinstatement of MunsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
  3. Matter of Reinstatement of HardinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
  4. In Re the Reinstatement of PateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
  5. In Re the Reinstatement of FarrantSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2004

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF RICKEYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019
  2. IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF GILLSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  3. IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF DUKESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
  4. IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF GOFORTHSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019
  5. IN THE MATTER OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF RICKEYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API