STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. PISTONIK Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us e-payments Careers Home Courts Decisions Programs News Legal Research Court Records Quick Links OSCN Found Document:STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. PISTONIK Previous Case Top Of Index This Point in Index Citationize Next Case Print Only STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. PISTONIK2020 OK 93Case Number: SCBD-6859Decided: 11/24/2020THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2020 OK 93, __ 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. Bradley A. Pistotnik, Respondent. PROCEEDING FOR BAR DISCIPLINE ¶0 This is a summary disciplinary proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP), 5 O.S.2011, ch. 1, app. 1-A, based upon Respondent Bradley Alan Pistotnik's guilty plea to three misdemeanor charges of Accessory After the Fact in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3. On October 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas sentenced Respondent, ordering him to pay a fine of $375,000, restitution of $55,200, and a special assessment of $300. On October 31, 2019, the Oklahoma Bar Association ("OBA") transmitted to this Court a certified copy of the record relating to the conviction, and on November 18, 2019, we ordered Respondent's immediate interim suspension. Following a mitigation hearing, the Professional Responsibility Tribunal ("PRT") concluded Respondent was not forthright in his testimony and recommended a one-year suspension. Upon de novo review, we find that a suspension for two years and a day serves the important goals of discipline. RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS AND ONE DAY, EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF THIS OPINION, AND ORDERED TO PAY COSTS. Attorneys and Law Firms: Katherine M. Ogden, Oklahoma Bar Association, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant. Charles F. Alden, III, Jack S. Dawson, and Amy L. Alden, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Sheila J. Naifeh, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondent. DARBY, V.C.J.: I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶1 Respondent Bradley Alan Pistotnik was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma in 1981 and in the State of Kansas in 1982. Respondent attended the University of Kansas School of Law, and he currently lives in Wichita, Kansas. He maintains clients in both states with the majority of his practice being in Kansas. Respondent's federal criminal conviction in Kansas arose from his conduct in 2014, after he hired a web developer, David Dorsett, to build a website for his newly formed law firm. Respondent opened this new law office following a contentious dissolution of his old firm and partnership with his brother. The winding up of that business led to competing lawsuits between the brothers, including an action for receivership to retain control over clients, and a court order from a Kansas judge directing them to disable the old website, www.pistotniklaw.com, and create their own independent sites. Hr'g Tr., 120-21. ¶2 On September ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals