STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. KHUU

Citation: 2020 OK 82

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma; October 5, 2020; Oklahoma; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tuan Anh Khuu requested approval from the Oklahoma Supreme Court to resign from the Oklahoma Bar Association while pending disciplinary proceedings related to allegations of professional misconduct. The resignation was submitted on July 9, 2020, following an investigation into multiple grievances. Khuu's affidavit confirms the resignation was voluntary, without coercion, and he understood the consequences. He acknowledged that the resignation's effectiveness is contingent upon the Court's approval but intends for it to be effective from the filing date.

The grievances under investigation include:

1. **Grievance DC 19-147 (Joseph Dingal)**: Allegations that Khuu solicited Dingal to marry a woman in Vietnam for U.S. citizenship, promising $25,000 for the marriage and misrepresenting the situation, leading to financial exploitation of the woman.

2. **Grievance DC 19-158 (Wilson Ho)**: Claims that Khuu was hired for a personal injury case but failed to distribute settlement funds after a resolution, along with poor communication and lack of diligence.

3. **Grievance DC 19-218 (J. Cruz Godinez)**: Allegations of neglect in a case involving the deaths of Godinez's nephews, including failure to distribute settlement funds promptly.

Further allegations indicate Khuu did not provide requested IOLTA bank statements during the investigation, and discrepancies in trust account records were noted, including a check that failed to clear.

David Tran's grievance (DC 19-193) alleges neglect in disbursing settlement funds from his personal injury case and failure to communicate, despite a signed release over a year prior. The General Counsel's Office claims a delayed response to Mr. Tran's grievance and misrepresentation regarding mailing a $1,159.00 settlement check.

Geraldine Steil's grievance (DC 20-103) asserts inadequate responses to her inquiries about a $30,000.00 settlement distribution post-mediation in December 2019. The General Counsel's investigation revealed failure to provide requested IOLTA bank statements and noted that the settlement funds were not properly maintained according to Rule 1.15, ORPC.

Benito Rodriguez's grievance (DC 20-107) mirrors Steil's, citing lack of communication regarding a $50,000.00 settlement. Similar allegations about IOLTA records and improper fund maintenance were made by the General Counsel.

Grievance DC 20-110, filed by the General Counsel, highlights an overdraft of $150.00 in the IOLTA account and misrepresentation of the cause related to the law firm’s name change. The attorney failed to provide timely trust account records, and a significant transfer of $155,000.00 from a personal account to the trust account was noted.

Teresa Boye's grievance (DC 20-110) claims neglect of her personal injury case and lack of timely communication. 

Thuan Tran's grievance (DC 20-112) alleges delays in providing $3,520.64 in settlement funds despite prior approval and communication failures. The General Counsel claims misrepresentation regarding mailing the settlement check.

Vanna Nguyen's grievance (DC 20-113) states delays in communication about her settlement and failure to disburse payments to her and a medical provider.

Jerry Ellis's grievance (DC 20-114) involves allegations of misrepresentation about his case status and settlement funds disbursement delays.

Neuyet Ha's grievance (DC 20-118) also points to insufficient communication regarding approximately $3,966.66 in settlement funds owed to her.

The Office of the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent misrepresented efforts to settle with Ms. Ha. If proven, these allegations would violate several rules governing attorney conduct, including Rule 1.3 and 5.2 of the RGDP and Rules 1.15 and 8.1(a-d) of the ORPC. The Respondent acknowledges that the burden of proof lies with the Complainant but waives the right to contest the allegations. An attorney under investigation may resign from the Oklahoma Bar Association, and the Respondent's resignation complies with the necessary rules. The Supreme Court may approve or refuse the resignation, allowing disciplinary proceedings to continue. The Respondent’s resignation should be approved, and his official address is provided. He cannot locate his Bar membership card but is willing to destroy it if found. The Respondent agrees to reimburse the Complainant $6.90 for investigative costs within 30 days and acknowledges potential claims against the Client Security Fund, agreeing to reimburse it for any disbursements prior to applying for reinstatement. His resignation will result in disbarment, preventing him from applying for reinstatement for five years. He must notify clients of his inability to represent them within 20 days. Compliance with Rule 9.1 is required before reinstatement. The Supreme Court orders the approval of the resignation and the striking of his name from the attorney roll, with no additional costs imposed.