His Brother’s Grievance Leads to an Oklahoma Lawyer’s Disbarment

An Oklahoma lawyer who, as personal representative of his father’s estate, misappropriated more than $1 million from it and also failed to pay estate taxes for several years, was disbarred by the state’s highest court.

“Respondent’s misconduct is disturbing,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said in a March 24 ruling. “It is our difficult duty to withdraw a license to practice law, but we shall if necessary to protect the interest of the public and the legal profession as a whole.”

Tulsa attorney Kent LeRoy Siegrist was named personal representative of his father’s estate in 2008 after his father died, the court recounted. In 2017, his brother hired a lawyer to represent him in the probate proceeding.

That lawyer filed a petition for accounting and moved to have the brother replace Siegrist as personal representative, alleging Siegrist failed to file federal and state tax returns for the estate for several years, the court said.

Siegrist didn’t attend most of the probate proceedings, his deposition or a scheduled mediation session, the court said.

In 2018, he was found to have misappropriated $1,135,000 and a judge entered a judgment against him for double that amount while also finding him in contempt of court.

After that, Siegrist’s brother filed a grievance against him with the state bar.

A former client also filed a grievance against Siegrist after he failed to file that client’s amended bankruptcy plan on time causing the case to be dismissed, the court said. He told the client that he had “relapsed” due to his drinking and was going into “treatment,” the court said.

In Aug. 2019, the state professional responsibility tribunal filed a complaint against Siegrist but he didn’t answer it and the allegations were deemed admitted, the court said. He also didn’t appear at his disciplinary hearing.

Oklahoma’s high court agreed with the tribunal that Siegrist violated numerous his ethical duties, including those of competence, diligence, and communication, as well as the prohibition against dishonest conduct and mishandling of client funds.

It noted that Siegrist “failed to participate at any level” in regard to the complaint so that “the record is silent” as to his point of view. Thus, it said, “we have no choice but to adopt the facts as presented to us.” by the tribunal.

And these facts warrant disbarment, it concluded.

The case is State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Siegrist, 2020 BL 110131, Okla., No. 6825, 3/24/20.