STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX. REL. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant,
MARY E. MCMILLEN, Respondent.
OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL
RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
PROCEEDING FOR RULE 7 SUMMARY DISCIPLINE
This summary disciplinary proceeding was brought pursuant to
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5
O.S. 2011 Ch. 1, App. 5. It is based upon respondent's
plea agreements to charges of driving under the influence of
alcohol, transporting an open container of beer, driving with
a suspended license, and driving under the influence causing
an accident. This Court issued an Order of Immediate Interim
Suspension of respondent's license to practice law in the
State of Oklahoma after the plea agreements were finalized.
After waiving a hearing before the Professional
Responsibility Tribunal, the respondent now seeks to lift her
suspension and have final discipline determined. We lift the
interim suspension, publicly censure the respondent, and
reinstate her license subject to certain probationary
Maddox, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Bar Association,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Complainant.
Naifeh, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Respondent.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 5, 2016, the Oklahoma Bar Association (Bar) filed
a Notice of Deferred Sentence with the Court.  The notice
concerned the respondent, Mary E. McMillen
(McMillen/respondent) who lives in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, and
who has been a Bar member since September of 2012.
According to the information that the District Attorney of
Cherokee County filed on October 2, 2015, McMillen was
stopped on September 25, 2015, for driving under the
influence of alcohol, transporting an open container of beer,
and driving with a suspended license. On February 22, 2016,
McMillen was arrested in Wagoner County for driving under the
influence after causing an automobile accident in which the
other driver was seriously injured. The Wagoner County
charges were filed on May 19, 2016.
The respondent pled no contest to both charges and entered
plea agreements in both counties in November of 2016. It
appears that the charges were reduced to misdemeanors in both
counties and that the respondent received deferred sentences
of approximately eighteen months to run concurrently.
On December 12, 2016, the Court, pursuant to Rules 7.1 and
7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, entered
an immediate interim suspension of the respondent.
The Court also gave McMillen an opportunity to show why the
interim suspension should be set aside and allowed the Bar to
respond. On December 20, 2016, the respondent filed an
Affidavit of Compliance with the Court stating that, pursuant
to the Court's interim suspension and to Rule 9.1 of the
Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceeding,  she advised her
clients to seek new legal representation.  Essentially,
McMillen affirmed that she was "taking proactive steps
to formally withdraw from all cases pending with any
tribunal." She enclosed a list of the clients who were
notified and in which counties their cases were filed.
On January 6, 2017, and February 2, 2017, the respondent
requested that her interim suspension be set aside. The Bar
responded on January 17, 2017. Additionally, some of the
exhibits/documents which were filed, were filed under seal
because they contain medical and other health care records.
On February 2, 2017, McMillen notified the Court that she
expressly waived her right to a hearing before the
Professional Responsibility Tribunal.
No final discipline has been imposed and the respondent has
been suspended by the Court since December 12, 2016.
Respondent now requests that the Court set aside her interim
suspension, and impose no further discipline. The reason?
McMillen "self suspended" for six months about a
year ago, sought treatment, and continues to seek treatment
for her addiction issues since then as well. In support of
her argument, she includes evidence of her self-suspension
which the Bar acknowledges did actually occur.
The respondent, after being turned down for inpatient
residential substance abuse treatment through the Oklahoma
Department of Mental Health and Abuse System (ODMHSAS) in
March of 2016, began outpatient treatment which continues to
this day. McMillen has been consistent in participation and
treatment and her counselor does not assess that the
respondent would be a danger to her clients or unable to
provide effective service to them. Her treatment has included
considering the welfare of clients at the forefront of her