April 2024 Tulsa Lawyer Magazine

Tulsa MagazineLawyer

April 2024

2

4

5

6

9

15

16

A Message from the President

Michael E. Esmond

Law Day in America

With Law Day fast approaching, this month is an opportune time to reflect on the significance of this commemorative day and its importance to our profession. The origins of Law Day can be traced back to the height of the Cold War in the 1950s. At that time, May 1, or May Day, had been well established as International Workers’ Day, an outgrowth of the 19th-century labor movement in the United States. Because of its popularity and significance in the Soviet Union and its allied countries, many Americans came to associate May Day celebrations with communism. In response to that development, President Eisenhower established Law Day in 1958, proclaiming it as a day for Americans to reflect on and reaffirm the country’s commitment to the rule of law and individual rights.

In the years since Law Day’s inception, American presidents have issued proclamations marking the day every year. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, several presidential proclamations focused on the contrast between Law Day and International Workers’ Day. President Kennedy’s 1963 Law Day proclamation stated that Law Day is “the significant answer to Communism’s May Day demonstrations, and calls on our people to rededicate themselves to ideals of equality and justice in their relations with one another and to the same ideals in relations with other nations.” Proclamation No. 3515 (1963). In 1982, President Regan noted that “Law Day U.S.A. stands in sharp contrast to ‘May

Day’ observances conducted in the Communist world. We have only to look at recent events in Poland to be reminded of the difference between the rule of force and the rule of law.” Proclamation No. 4931 (1982).

Other presidents have used the occasion to highlight the fundamental principle that the rule of law applies to all citizens. For instance, in 1974, President Nixon’s Law Day proclamation stressed that “Our freedoms survive because no man or woman is beneath the protections of the law. And the law retains its value and force because every person knows that no man or woman is above the requirements of the law.”1 Proclamation No. 4289 (1974). President Trump recognized this same important principle in his Law Day proclamation in 2019: “On Law Day, we renew our commitment to the rule of law and our Constitution. The rule of law requires that no one be above the obligations of the law or beneath its protections, and it stands as

1 As if to prove Nixon’s point that no man or woman is above the requirements of the law, later that same year, he resigned on August 9, 1974, and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford on September 8, 1974. In President Ford’s proclamation pardoning Nixon, he noted that Nixon had “become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States.” Proclamation No. 4311 (1974).

a bulwark against the arbitrary use of government power.” Proclamation No. 9872 (2019).

Presidents have also used Law Day as an opportunity to reflect on challenges and opportunities of the time and prompt conversations about the state of democracy and justice in America. In 1969, President Nixon decried “rising crime rates, urban rioting, and violent campus protests” and stressed the need to “reverse the upward trend of lawlessness in our land.” Proclamation No. 3898 (1969). In 1992, President George H.W. Bush addressed the response to the verdict in the Rodney King case, which was “viewed by a large number of Americans as indefensible,” and asserted that: “The wanton destruction of human life and property is not a legitimate expression of outrage with injustice; it is itself injustice.” Proclamation No. 6429 (1992). In 2021, President Biden addressed the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which he described as a great threat “to our democratic institutions and to the rule of law itself.” Proclamation No. 10197 (2021).

Whatever the particular annual message or theme chosen for Law Day or highlighted in presidential proclamations, there is a common and consistent emphasis on education and outreach. As President Carter recognized: “If our legal heritage is to be preserved, laymen and lawyers alike must understand and appreciate the role of our courts, and work to strengthen and improve our legal system.” Proclamation No. 4499 (1977). Through educational programs and initiatives, Law Day seeks to empower non-lawyers with the knowledge and tools they need to navigate the legal system effectively and fulfill their roles as citizens. To that end, presidential proclamations issue an annual call upon Americans to promote

Law Day. For example, in 1997, President Clinton called upon “members of the legal profession, civic associations, educators, librarians, public officials, and the media to promote the observance of [Law Day] with appropriate programs and activities.” Proclamation No. 6995 (1997).

The TCBA and TCBF do their part to accomplish the goals of Law Day by sponsoring and coordinating multiple programs. The Law Week Committee, led this year by Mary Clement & Tana Van Cleave, has been working tirelessly to coordinate activities that include Ask-A-Lawyer, student writing and art contests, the annual Law Day Luncheon, First Responders Will Clinic, mock trials, and more. These activities educate the public about their legal rights and responsibilities, foster dialogue on pressing legal issues, and inspire a sense of civic engagement and participation. I hope you will make time to participate in as many as you can.

Sincerely,

Michael E. Esmond TCBA President, 2023-2024

Lawyers Helping Lawyers

Monthly meetings led by a Lawyers Helping Lawyers Committee member. The small group discussions are intended to give group leaders and participants the opportunity to ask questions, provide support and share information with fellow bar members to improve their lives –professionally and personally.

Lear n more at okbar.org/lhl/

Tulsa Meetings are held 5:30-6:30 p.m. on the second Thursday of each month at the office of Scott Goode, 1437 S. Boulder Ave., Ste. 1200, Tulsa. scottbgoode@gmail.com

Oklahoma City Meetings are held 6-7:30 p.m., Visit okbar.org for dates or email debraj@okbar.org. In-person meetings in Oklahoma City are held at the office of Tom Cummings, 701 NW 13th St., Oklahoma City. The group will also meet virtually at the same time using BlueJeans. Email debraj@okbar.org for login information.

CELEBRATE & FUND THE FOUNDATION

By being a member of the TCBA, you are also a member of the Tulsa County Bar Foundation. As a general rule, the funds that come into the Foundation are the result of a fundraising event for our community, and the monies raised are immediately distributed back out into the community through non-profit organizations.

In an effort to assist the Foundation, we have implemented a monthly “Fund the Foundation” program. To participate we are asking each member who has a birthday this month to consider making a donation to the Foundation. You can do so with the QR Code shown here.

If you are not currently a Fellow, please consider joining that program. As a thank you (and let’s be honest, an encouragement to other members), if you donate before the 10th of the month we will include a shout out to you in the next issue of Tulsa Lawyer Magazine.

Carol Beatty

Mac Finlayson

Catherine Hoopert

Michael Taubman

Michael Nesser

The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Lawyers

By Joseph Norwood

In Shakespeare’s “Henry VI”, a group of outlaw insurgents are plotting the overthrow of their government. Their grudge being their perception that the current regime is oppressive to the common person. While plotting the overthrow of their government one of the outlaws speaks the infamous phrase "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

This phrase has been, generally, interpreted in two ways. One interpretation being that if one wants to attack the powerful and influential, who are believed to keep the common man down, one must kill those that protect the upper class, lawyers. The other interpretation is that if a mob of criminals is to take the reins of power, the first thing they would need to do is kill the protectors of the rule of law, lawyers.

Lawyers are seen as both undermining the rule of law and democracy by perverting it to protect the powerful and, at the same time, enforcing the concept

that no one is above the law, therefore bolstering democracy in an essential way.

We see these conflicting sentiments about lawyers playing out in our current politics. Lawyers protecting the corrupt and powerful and at the same time holding the corrupt and powerful accountable to the same rules as a common person. Our obligation to our clients being a strong driver of the dual perception of lawyers as protectors and distorters of the rule of law.

I, like many of you, have had the opportunity to personally experience this duality of our profession in the cases we handle. It is pervasive throughout our system, playing out in both criminal and civil law. Several cases stand out as examples of this duality. Specifically, and most glaringly, I have seen it with clients of mine that have been wrongfully convicted. Also, I see the dichotomy of our profession in more common and mundane cases like personal injury.

I have had the honor to represent three poor, black men who were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for heinous crimes that it turns out they had nothing to do with. In all three cases, lawyers were the central characters in the perversion of justice where the powerless were railroaded by the system we are tasked with guarding. But at the same time, it was lawyers who (eventually) righted these grave injustices and brought back some of the lost faith in the rule of law and thereby bolstering democracy.

In the case of my client Corey Atchison, he was wrongfully convicted of murder in 1991 here in Tulsa. Mr. Atchison had exculpatory evidence withheld from him and other evidence manufactured to make him look guilty. Lawyers had a hand in all of it. In 2016 Corey asked me to represent him to right this grave injustice. After hundreds of hours of investigation, research, and advocacy Corey was found actually innocent and freed by the Honorable Sharon Holmes. Corey did 28 years for a crime he had nothing to do with, in part because lawyers wanted to advance professionally. Also, in part because lawyers didn’t do their job in protecting their powerless clients. The duality of lawyers’ perverting the law and protecting the law, playing out in stark contrast.

Glynn Simmons was convicted of murder in 1975 in Oklahoma County and was sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court wiped out Glynn’s death sentence in a series of cases flowing from the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia. The Court saved Glynn’s life for him to eventually be exonerated. After hearing about my representation of Corey Atchison, Glynn contacted me and asked if I would represent him. After looking at Glynn’s case, I knew what I had to do. Glynn, like Corey, had

exculpatory evidence hidden from him and had evidence manufactured against him. Glynn was found innocent last year, but only after he spent 48 and a half years in prison for a murder he had nothing to do with. Glynn has the ignominious distinction of being the longest serving wrongful conviction in U.S. history. Glynn fought hard the entire time he was incarcerated. Filing numerous post-convictions and writs of habeas corpus. He was represented by around a dozen lawyers along the way and came before well over a dozen judges. Glynn hates lawyers, but at the same time calls lawyers his close friends and savior. His dual view of lawyers mirroring the perception of our profession in our society. Lawyers had a big hand in the injustice that Glynn had to endure, but we also redeemed, as much as could be, the rule of law. The duality of lawyers as perverters of justice and undermining democracy and as protectors of justice, bringing faith to democracy, playing out once again in glaring contrast.

I have also had the honor of being involved in taking laws off the books that benefitted the powerful at the cost of the powerless. Specifically, a particularly heinous “tort reform” law dubbed “no pay, no play”. This was a law enacted at the insistence of the insurance lobby, no doubt with the assistance of many lawyers. This law prevented victims in car collision cases from recovering for pain and suffering in court if they did not have auto insurance at the time of their injury. That’s right, if you’re not paying insurance companies’ premiums, then you could not have access to the courts to remedy your damages. Lawyers played a role in creating and enacting this unconstitutional law that profited insurance companies at the expense of poor injury victims. At the same time, it was a lawyer who challenged this law’s constitutionality in court and lawyers sitting as judges

Continued on next page...

(the right Honorable Linda Morrisey and the Oklahoma Supreme Court) that had the courage to stand up to the powerful insurance industry and knock this law down. Lawyers undermining constitutional democracy and upholding it.

Every day we grapple with the competing interests of our obligations to our clients, oaths to the constitution, political and professional concerns, and financial considerations while we do the business of our third branch of government. From these competing interests emerges the perception, if not reality behind “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph Norwood owns and operates a small firm in Tulsa, OK, Norwood.Law, practicing personal injury, business law, family law, probate and trusts, criminal defense and civil rights.

Street Law Update

Street Law students prepare for mock trial. Volunteer attorneys, law students, and community partners meet every Friday to teach KIPP University Prep students legal life skills. In addition, volunteers work with students on a mock trial, which they will then present with the Honorable Sharon Homes presiding. The TCBA would like to extend a big thank you to our volunteers. Without them, this program could not succeed. Law Students: Amanda Stockard, Mackenzie Clark, Sunshine Graham, Paula Carbin, George Myring, Allie Morrison, Kylie Shelley. Community Partners: Simon Falokun and Dezmond Harris. Attorneys: Trevion Freeman, JP Ray. Chairs: Kara Vincent and Pierre Robertson.

Golden Rule Award

2nd Quarter - Joe Norwood

GOLDEN RULE

1: capitalized G&R : a rule of ethical conduct : do to others as you would have them do to you

2: a guiding principle

Joseph Norwood is this quarter's Golden Rule Award winner for his outstanding contributions to the legal profession. Joe studied law a the University of Tulsa, graduated in 2002, and opened Norwood Law Firm in 2004.

In December 2023, Glynn Simmons was released from prison after serving 48 years for a crime he did not commit. Joe took on this case and spent an exhaustive amount of time and resources getting Mr. Simmons freed. In 2018, Joe was involved in the release of another wrongfully convicted Oklahoman, Corey Atchinson. Police coerced multiple witnesses to testify against Atchinson, resulting in more than thirty years behind bars. Also in 2018 Joe took on Bank of America in a case that the Court of Civil Appeals declared provisions barring waiver of jury trial in a contract unconstitutional. Tow of the most powerful lobbies in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and the Oklahoma Bankers Association joined Bank of Oklahoma in appealing to the OK Supreme Court, whom declined.

Throughout his career, Joe has taken cases that put him at odds with law enforcement and the judicial system. He's taken clients who have been ignored and denied justice for too long and helped get them their lives back. Joe is a model example for conduct with members of the Bar and Judiciary, not only by words but, more importantly, by deeds.

The Bar Center will be CLOSED Friday, April 26th 10am-2pm for the Law Day Luncheon

Multiple offices available at 91st & Yale in professional growth corridor of South Tulsa. Easy access to Creek Turnpike and Riverside Drive. Office space includes common area, conference rooms, storage, rest rooms, kitchenette and ample parking. Furnishings and common receptionist optional. Classic finishes and private entrance available. If interested, please contact Sean Jacoway at (918) 392-5209.

Award Criteria

The Golden Rule award is given to lawyers who make outstanding contributions to their professions, have the highest of ideals, and are willing to mentor to those with less experience.

Criteria for Award:

1. Recognizes the ethical and professional obligations as an officer of the court, as well as the spirit and intent of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. Practices ethically and honestly and is true to his/her word.

3. Strives for the traditional goals of moral excellence.

4. Exhibits the highest standards of fairness and integrity.

5. Sets a model example for conduct with members of the Bar and the Judiciary, not only by words but more importantly deeds.

6. Is civil, courteous and respectful towards the court and his/her opponents.

7 Is loyal to his/her client without trickery and deception and without using abusive practices or misleading the court or opposing counsel.

8 Avoids the temptation to make his/her client’s case into a personal vendetta.

9 Conducts himself/herself in a manner that improves the image of the legal profession in the eyes of the public.

TCBA HAPPENINGS

Workers Comp Section Meet & Greet hosted by Toon Law Firm.

The highlight was Phil Hawkins' dog balancing treats on their nose and then catching them in their mouth. The next meeting will include CLE, so stay tuned for details.

MLK DAY PARADE

There was much better weather for the rescheduled Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Parade on Saturday, February 17th. The vibes were great thanks to our supportive group waving to the crowd and handing out candy. Help facilitate more events lights this by attending Diversity Development meetings, hosted virtually on the 2nd Monday of each month. (l to r - Alexandra Simmons, Mike Esmond, Marvin Lizama, Tami Williams, Stephanie Jackson, Michael Taubman, Dennis Baker and his sister.)

Lager and Lawyers

The Solo/Small Firm Section hosted another Lager and Lawyers, this time at NEFF Brewery, with featured speaker Brian Largent, from The ArcLight Group. Their next two meetings will be breakfast meetings at the TCBA, April 23 and May 21!

Diversity Day at TU

The TCBA was happy to be a part of the Diversity Day at TU College of Law. We enjoyed member Kevinn Matthews' CLE on "What is Diversity?" and got to hang out at the Career Fair with Pierre Robertson & Janay Clougherty from the Tulsa County PD's Office., as well as TU Law Student, Ger'Kayla Tunley.

Energy & Mineral Law Section

Chair, Buford Pollett, as he attended TU's Resources, Energy, and Environment Law Society networking event at TU College of Law on February 15th. The Section was invited to come mingle and connect with students. Don't miss the sections second annual Rose Rock Energy Workshop, April 10th. Register online. See page 27 for details!

Brown Bag CLE

Uniform Parentage Act held January 24, 2024 with the Hon. Mary Ann Godsby (middle), and attorneys Krista Steuart (left) and Julie Bushyhead (right).

Rolling Like A Juggernaut

(Tulsa ASK-A-LAWYER Attorneys still setting records)

In 2023, I began an article with an immortal quote from PATTON when George C. Scott said, “We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding on to anything.” This sentiment fully embraced the OBA’s philosophy in assisting the public with a fundamentally new approach to the ASK-A-LAWYER (AAL) Program.

With the advancements in technology and a new increased interest from the attorneys of Tulsa County, for 2024’s upcoming ASK-A-LAWYER program on May 1st, we are

ROLLING LIKE A JUGGERNAUT.

With 60 two hour slots available, the prospect of filling them would at first seem daunting. I challenge that notion with the observation from 2023 that saw all our slots filled far in advance of the actual program. Attorneys are signing up early now in numbers I haven’t seen in years. We do have 2 hour slots available still, so get your reservations in now!

While we enjoyed the cooperation and help of the OETA for over 30 years, it was time for a radical change. Something had to be done for this program to survive. New technology combined with a bold new vision came together in 2022. No longer would we be beholden to the OETA for location, phones, phone lines and advertising. The TCBA proposed a radical departure from the past. The TCBA Bar Center would ‘host’ the program here with our own VOIP protocol iPads, headphones and inline microphones.

The money saved by severing our relationship with the OETA allowed funding to not only buy the equipment needed, but also pursue an aggressive marketing campaign. In 2022, this new program launched with 8 ‘phones’ available here in Tulsa. We saw a basic 60% increase in calls as compared to 2021. While elated with this significant improvement in just one year, we were convinced that further progress could and would be made.

juggernaut

- noun a massive inexorable force, campaign, movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path

Fast forward to 2023. On May 1st, we had 10 lines open for the first time in well over 15 years. Every phone was literally busy all 12 hours nonstop without a break of a few seconds in between calls! I am convinced that 15 phone lines would have been just as busy had we had that many. There were calls we could not answer due to more demand than supply!

The 2023 final report for Tulsa’s AAL program showed an 84% increase in calls from 2022. (Remember that 2022 showed a 60% increase from 2021).

Thanks to the attorneys of Tulsa County, in 2023, we answered more calls than the rest of the State combined! (that includes OKC as well).

This is why I say: WE ARE ROLLING LIKE A JUGGERNAUT!

--Dan Crawford, Chair

DEI Perspective:

The Chilling Effect of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al., and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S.181, (2023) on DEI programs.

By Marvin G. Lizama, Esq., Chair, Tulsa County Bar Association Diversity

The current status of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) programs in the corporate world have come under legal attack as a direct result of the Unites States Supreme Court’s Opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al., and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College 600 U.S.181, (2023), decided June 29, 2023 (hereinafter SFFA). Although the Court’s decision was limited to higher education programs, a growing list of lawsuits against the private sector, challenging DEI policies and programs, have sprung as litigants aim to apply the Court’s decision to other scenarios, such as hiring and promoting within the corporate world. But progressive employers must not be discouraged, intimidated, or persuaded to abandon decades of advancements towards the elimination of deeply rooted systematic bias in the hiring and promotion practices of the corporate world. To the contrary, employers must continue to advance hiring and promotion policies and practices at work that aim at creating employment opportunities for all applicants, while at the same time acknowledging the need to be accepting and open to hire members of traditionally minority groups—including people of different races, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and/or religious beliefs.

Over the past six decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a number of opinions related to race-based admissions and have permitted such admissions systems to be implemented only “within the confines of narrow restrictions. University programs must comply with strict scrutiny, they may never use race as a stereotype or negative, and—at some point—they must end”. Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); Grutter

Development Committee

v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326 (2003); Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297, 311-312 (2016). Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are two of the oldest universities in the United States, and each implemented admission policies that aimed at maintaining a certain percentage of admitted minority students each year. One of the components of the admissions process included taking a students’ race into account. Thus, it appeared that “race was a determinative tip for a percentage of “all admitted African American and Hispanic Students”. SFFA, supra. Petitioners filed law suits against Harvard and UNC, arguing that the institutions’ race-based admissions programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The question presented to the Court was whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina were lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the admissions systems for these two private higher education institutions, “however well intentioned and implemented in good faith” failed to meet the strict scrutiny test and the Court held that said admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.

As a direct result of this U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a growing list of lawsuits have sprung across the country to challenge the hiring and promoting practices in the private sector. In August 2023, a classaction lawsuit was filed against a mass-media company, Gannett Co. Inc., alleging that the company made firing and promoting decisions based on the company’s “discriminatory policy” that favored women and minority candidates in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. In August 2023, plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of its members against Fearless Fund—a Georgia grant organization that awards grants of up to $20,000.00 to Black Women-owned businesses. The Plaintiff alleges the program violates a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in making or enforcement of contracts. In September 2023, a Washington Judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Starbucks, accusing the company of racial discrimination for the way it implements its DEI program since 2020. Most recently, in February 2024, American First Legal, a right-wing think-tank in Washington D.C., filed a Civil Rights Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against the Walt Disney Company, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by “engaging in illegal race, sex, and national origin discrimination”. The lawsuit was prompted in part by the Walt Disney Company’s DEI initiatives in hiring and promoting employees. Other companies facing complaints over their DEI initiatives include Kellogg’s—accused of implementing hiring, training and promotion practices designed to achieve a balance based on race and sex; and Target, Co.—the company has faced numerous complaints and lawsuits over the past five years for implementing its DEI policies in hiring and promoting employees.

There is plenty of debate regarding the intent behind the people and the reasons why DEI policies and programs are the subject of this cascade of legal complaints against some of America’s largest employers. Some companies such as Pfizer Inc., have already altered their DEI policies to fend off future law suits against the company. Most recently, in March 2024, the University of Florida eliminated its Chief Diversity Officer position and all of that office’s staff. The decision was made a direct result of a State law passed in 2023 and signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, which effectively aimed at “ending ‘woke’ policies in education”.1 These are only a handful of examples of the chilling effect of the SFFA Opinion on DEI programs.

As DEI critics and new law-suits continue to surface, companies and DEI champions need not waver in their steadfast approach to implementing DEI policies and practices at every level of the corporate ladder. Companies can protect themselves by implementing DEI programs that emphasize the corporate hiring goals of the company as opposed to setting hardline hiring quotas based on specific factor such as race, sex, and/or sexual identification.

1 Source: https://www.nprorg/2024/03/04/1235725631/ university-florida-cuts-dei-office.

The University of Tulsa College of Law’s Legal Community Honors Historical Achievements at Annual Gala

The University of Tulsa College of Law announces the celebration of legal excellence at their highly anticipated Justice & Dreams Gala on March 8, 2024 at 6:00 pm, at the elegant Southern Hills Country Club.

Annually hosted, the gala embodies a night of acknowledgment, inspiration, and support, bringing together legal experts, visionaries, and trailblazers in the industry. The evening is dedicated to honoring the remarkable contributions and achievements of leading figures in law, all while cultivating future legal minds through essential scholarship fundraising efforts to support the next generation of legal professionals.

This year's accolades feature the posthumous presentation of the W. Thomas Coffman Community Service Award to historical legend B.C. Franklin for his courageous efforts in reclaiming property for Tulsans following the Tulsa Massacre. The prestigious Benjamin P. Abney Cor Legis Award is granted to the accomplished attorney Wendy Drummond (JD '07) of Drummond Law, PLLC, in recognition of her ceiling-shattering contributions to law and dedication to community service. Additionally, Governor Bill Anoatubby of the Chickasaw Nation is honored with a Lifetime Achievement in Law Award for his steadfast leadership and visionary stewardship of the Chickasaw Nation.

"We look forward to honoring significant achievements in law each year through our gala. Our gala not only honors these individuals but also lays a groundwork for future generations of legal professionals through scholarships," says Dean Oren Griffin, symbolizing the passionate commitment of TU Law to both legacy and future.

TU Law remains dedicated to cultivating an academic setting that promotes student growth and impact, offering enriching learning experiences and opportunities. This commitment is showcased at events such as the Justice & Dreams Gala. The celebratory occasion mirrors not just the excellence of The College's programs and alumni, but also the commitment of its sponsors and community advocates. Deep appreciation is extended to Premier Sponsors Chickasaw Nation, Jill & Robert Thomas, and Susan & Bill Thomas; and Gold Sponsors FD Law, GableGotwals, and Williams for their ongoing partnerships and contributions.

"Our sponsors are vital to turning the aspirations of budding legal professionals into reality by supporting [The College] all year long. We deeply appreciate their contributions that help shape the future of our field.," said Griffin.

(L to R): Gov. Bill Anoatubby, TU President Brad Carson, Wendy Drummond, John W. Franklin, and TU Law Dean Oren Griffin.

Conformity and the Implications for Expert Evidence

By Tamara R. Piety

Last month I discussed how the perception of authority plays an incredibly important role in assessing witness credibility, not just for juries, but for all of us. The Milgram experiments1 which I discussed last month, illustrate for us how significantly people may be willing to defer to those they perceive to be “experts,” even if it means overriding their own sense of appropriateness or morality. The deference to authority, or what Milgram refers to as “obedience” can easily be seen as a stand-in for the “general acceptance” component of both Frye and Daubert. In other words, if someone comes clothed in the trappings of an “authority” – even if it is just a white coat – that can cause someone to suspend their own judgment. The case of Dr. Henry Cotton shows that judges and juries, lawmakers and society in general may defer to someone who has the appearance of expertise, even if what they are saying is not backed up by sound science.

This phenomenon illustrates the “unfair prejudice” that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is meant to guard against, but it also demonstrates the bootstrapping quality of “general acceptance” and why it is so potentially problematic to identify someone as expert: the credentials may substitute for proof of validity where the decision-makers themselves lack the training or qualifications to really assess a practice. Assessment becomes a circular process of asking whether the practice or credentials are “accepted.” If they are, then the expert’s judgments too often are as well, even if it means (apparently) submitting a stranger to painful electric shocks on no better authority than the expert’s say so or allowing Dr. Henry Cotton to pull out all of his patients’ teeth to “treat” their mental problems, despite the obvious diminishment of the quality of their life and the paucity of the evidence that this radical treatment was helping them.

It is in this way that we can see the difficulty of distinguishing between astrology and astronomy in a world in which there are no priors, that is, where there are no proxies who have done the work to validate (or not) the theories on which the practices are based. This is not an abstract problem. It is precisely the problem that is presented by a wide array of forensic sciences for which there is little more than general acceptance to support their

validity, but for which there is a growing body of evidence to undermine their claims to validity. This was the general thrust of the National Research Council’s years long inquiry that culminated in its 2009 report, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” 2Many of the forensic sciences we have relied upon for decades are not based on a solid empirical foundation. Sometimes people have been sentenced to death and executed based on “expert” testimony which was subsequently revealed to be deeply flawed.3 Other forensic sciences that have been mainstays in both real and fictional prosecutions, expertise like hair and fiber analysis, bite mark analysis, tool mark analysis – even fingerprint comparisons – has been shown to be (at best) overstating the confidence with which conclusions may be stated to, (at worst) completely lacking validity.4 Yet today, some 15 years after the National Research Council’s ground-breaking report, one that included a wide range of participants and testimony, much of this expertise is still being accepted almost unquestioningly. What explains this?

One reason for the continued acceptance of some discredited “expert” testimony is that law is inherently conservative and backward-looking. Precedent – what we have done in the past – is part of the legitimate justification for continuing to do the same thing. This is partly rooted in preserving predictability and equality under the law and in ensuring that like cases are treated alike. But this feature means that it may be difficult to innovate since innovation, by definition, means doing something new, thus raising the potential of differential treatment between similar cases. Nevertheless, sometimes new approaches are adopted and there are various approached within the law to cope with any dissonance between the past and the present.

However, it turns out that it is not just law’s inherent conservatism because of reliance on precedent that makes innovation hard, but also because innovation often requires accepting that a previous idea was wrong and that is very, very difficult because there may be all sorts of careers and apparatus built up around the previous structure, stuff that goes away or is profoundly changed by innovation. And it is hard to get someone to let go of a particular idea if their livelihood or legitimacy is based on it. Political expectations

may be built around a particular notion of how cases are made that, for example, can make it difficult for a prosecutor to reject the use of some expert testimony in forensics, despite the evidence that it is not well-founded. Juror expectations can likewise be built up around false expectations generated by fictional portrayals of the justice system.5

In addition, there is another psychological phenomenon at work, the desire to conform not to an authority figure’s command, but to what others are doing. This phenomenon was captured in the famous Asch conformity experiment. This experiment, and much subsequent research, demonstrated that people would be willing to overlook the evidence of their own senses to go along with the crowd. We all know that the desire for social approval is strong, and we have probably all been warned by our parents not to blindly follow the crowd, but probably few of us realize that under the right conditions a large percentage of people will conform to group beliefs even about relatively trivial and easily verifiable questions like which one of two lines is longer.6 Sometimes this is because we just don’t want to make waves by disagreeing with what appears to be a consensus. Other times people are genuinely convinced that if everyone else believes something is true, then maybe their own judgment is not reliable.

Taken together, these two psychological phenomena – obedience to authority and desire for social acceptance/ conformity – illustrate how difficult it can be to pierce

“general acceptance” (assuming it has been achieved) or to achieve it for innovative technologies. These observations were part of the debate about whether the Daubert decision would be inherently more accepting of new technologies and cutting-edge science or would inhibit it. Initially, many observers thought it would be the former given that Daubert’s very premise – that courts were capable of assessing science and expert testimony on its own terms rather than simply deferring to the experts themselves as to what was “generally accepted” as the Frye court seemed to do. Others, noting that the Court in Daubert might have been partly inspired by the then popular concern about so-called “junk science” thought that Daubert was intended to keep more expert testimony out.

After a few decades of the courts’ implementation of Daubert I think it is fair to say that the results are in and that Daubert has enabled court to exclude more expert testimony than to admit more innovation. Nevertheless, Daubert’s basic premise, that scientific consensus moves and changes over time and that therefore, if challenged a court should assess the evidence for and against the admission of expert testimony in a case-specific way, should make it always illegitimate to deal with a Daubert challenge by resort to what courts have done in the past because it is not the law’s acceptance of a practice that Daubert requires that judges test, but rather the acceptance of the scientific and expert community. And that consensus must be continually tested. A court should not rely on how long a practice has been

accepted by the courts, but rather assess afresh its empirical, evidentiary validity.

And that brings us back to where we began: do judges have the tools or training to do what Daubert asks of them? Justice Rehnquist thought they probably do not and that Daubert asked too much of judges. It may be the best we can do though. Dean Jennifer Mnookin put it well when she wrote:

“[S]o long as we have our adversarial system in much its present form, we are inevitably going to be stuck with approaches to expert evidence that imperfect,

Endnotes

conceptually unsatisfying, and awkward. It may well be that the real lesson is this: those who believe that we might ever fully resolve – rather than imperfectly manage – the deep structural tensions surrounding both partisanship and epistemic competence that permeate the use of scientific evidence within our legal system are almost certainly destined to disappointment.”7

1 Apparently, none of the footnotes from last month’s article made their way into the issue. I urge you to check out the following You Tube video on the Milgram experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bbVFeTIIg8.

2 See https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/strengthening-forensic-science-united-states-path-forward

3 See David Grann, Trial by Fire, The New Yorker (Aug. 31, 2009) (Discussion of the role played by now discredited arson investigation experts in the trial and conviction of Todd Willingham in Texas). See also, Cameron Todd Willingham: Wrongfully Convicted and Executed in Texas, The Innocence Project https://innocenceproject.org/cameron-todd-willingham-wrongfully-convicted-and-executed-intexas/.

4 See Misapplication of Forensic Science, The Innocence Project https://innocenceproject.org/misapplication-of-forensic-science/

5 Consider for example the so-called “CSI Effect” – the jury’s belief that there will be incontrovertible DNA or forensic evidence in every case, without which the prosecution’s case must not be sound. The National Research Council’s report did not reflect full confidence that this was meaningful phenomenon in the justice system, see Strengthening Forensic Science at 48-49, but my sense is that prosecutors mostly do believe that it is a real obstacle to gaining convictions.

6 See Asch Experiment – Conformity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AUqTwGV3GQ. I urge readers to view these videos for themselves because it is hard to describe them concisely.

7 Jennifer L. Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship, and Epistemic Competence, 73 Brook. L. Rev. 1009, 1033 (2008).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tamara Piety is a Law Clerk to the Honorable Daman Cantrell of the Tulsa County District Court and a Professor emerita of Law at the University of Tulsa College of Law where she taught Evidence, Expert Evidence and Corporate Law. Before coming to TU she practiced law in South Florida and remains an active member of the Florida Bar. Professor Piety is a internationally recognized expert on corporations and the First Amendment and has written extensively on this topic, including her book, Brandishing the First Amendment, which was published in 2012 by the University of Michigan Press.

The March issue of Tulsa Lawyer Magazine inadvertently left off valuable footnotes in the article Expert Evidence and the Power of Authority, By Tamara R. Piety. Please visit https://issuu.com/ tulsacountybarassoication/docs/03-24_tl_web_v2 to read the article online in its entirety. Our apologies to Tamara Piety for the error.

Last Session of the 2024 Lynn Miller Law Day Book Club-April 16th

Last Chance! If you would like to attend the final book discussion, please email Martha Rupp Carter at mruppcarter@ yahoo.com to register yourself and up to one guest. Once you are registered, location details for Book Club will be shared. Registration is limited to fifteen persons per session on a first come, first served basis. Happy reading.

Kaylind Landes

April 16th - Kaylind Landes will lead discussion in April of Go Set a Watchman, by Harper Lee; this book is the only other published novel by the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. These novels are intertwined. Kaylind graduated with honors from the University of Tulsa where she participated in the Energy Law Journal and the health law moot court team. She received an award for the highest grade in Indian Gaming Law and the Order of the Barristers as a top ten student in law school. She served as assistant district attorney in the Tulsa and Rogers County District Attorney Offices. In those offices, Kaylind worked in every aspect of criminal prosecution from charging cases to jury trials. Kaylind works at the Tulsa DUI Guy with primary focus on defending misdemeanor DUI cases. Kaylind volunteers as a coach for the Owasso High School Mock Trial team and is the OSU liaison for her sorority, Pi Beta Phi.

APPLY NOW FOR THE CJA PANEL OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys are private attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants when a conflict prevents the Federal Public Defender’s Office from providing counsel. Attorneys interested in joining the CJA panel must submit an application and participate in the CJA training. Applications may be found at the Federal Public Defender website, https:// www.okn.fd.org, or by contacting CJA Resource Counsel, Stephen Greubel via email, stephen_greubel@fd.org, or by phone, 918-281-2033.

Deadline for applications is April 30, 2024, in order to participate in training.

The Voices of Democracy Law Day theme encourages Americans to participate in the 2024 elections by deepening their understanding of the electoral process, discussing issues in honest and civil ways, turning out to vote, and, finally, helping to move the country forward after free and fair elections. In this way, Americans ensure that our government remains responsive to the wishes of the people. We invite all Americans to join us on May 1, 2024, to celebrate Law Day by lifting their voices to strengthen our democracy.

Non-Profits and Pro Bono a Necessity for Many Survivors of Violence

By Laurel Williamson, Domestic Violence Intervention Services

When Tulsans hear “Domestic Violence Intervention Services” or “DVIS” they might think of our emergency shelter for victims and their children, trauma counseling for all ages, or our 24-hour HelpLine, and they are correct. But DVIS also has a dedicated Legal Team that offers free legal services to low-income survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and adult sex trafficking in Tulsa and Creek Counties.

Domestic violence rates in Oklahoma rose abruptly with the pandemic, but even as vaccines were developed and communities returned to “normal,” those numbers never declined. In fact, Tulsa County has the highest number of DV incidents and DV homicides in the state,1 and TPD reported 17,715 DV-related 911 calls in 2023, a 3.6% increase from 2022. A large percentage of survivors also experience financial abuse, where the abusive partner refuses access to income and/ or forbids them from having a job, leaving them in a position where it’s a challenge to buy groceries, much less hire an attorney. So, while DVIS, and a few other social service organizations continue to provide free legal services to Tulsans, the need is greater than ever for non-profit and pro bono attorneys to support survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

DVIS’s Legal Department includes Advocates for multiple needs, all offering extensive safety planning and referrals to local resources. Our Courthouse Advocates assist survivors with every step of the protective order (PO) process and can even be in court for their PO hearings. Criminal Court Advocates are available for survivors, who have been named a victim of a felony or a misdemeanor, to prepare them for hearings and guide them through the criminal court process. When needed, Law Enforcement can assist with filing police reports or getting copies of a report that has already been filed.

DVIS Attorneys, while they do not take criminal cases, provide legal representation and pro-bono legal

service referrals to assist survivors with civil matters like protective orders, divorce cases (with or without children), juvenile deprived cases, paternity actions, and custody proceedings.

“The main challenge for us,” said VP of Legal Services Megan Martin, “is the sheer volume of family law cases. We’ve been down a full-time attorney for months, but even when an attorney is available and assigned, the legal process itself can take two years.” Martin says there are not only mandatory waiting periods, but proceedings are also frequently delayed by circumstances like bankruptcy, a pregnancy, immigration status, and even losing contact with one of the parties. “And if the case goes to trial,” she said, “it takes even longer.”

Statistics show that survivors of abuse who have access to legal assistance are much more likely to enforce a protective order and not return to their abuser. The DVIS Legal Team is currently hiring for a full-time attorney2 and is forming a pro bono panel to help with caseloads. If you or someone you know would be a good fit, please reach out to Megan Martin, DVIS VP of Legal Services, at mmartin@dvis.org or 918.574.2930.

If you’d also like a fun way to financially support, please join us for Best of Brunch on March 16th, at the historic Mayo Hotel downtown for a variety of locally prepared brunch bites, bottomless mimosas and Bloody Marys, mystery boxes, a wine pull, and a fabulous silent auction, all while supporting the important work of the DVIS Legal Team.

1 Oklahoma Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board

2023 ANNUAL REPORT

2 Domestic Violence Intervention Services CAREERS

Why Law Day Matters: Understanding the Importance of Legal Awareness

By Kaitlin Pogue, 1L Student, University of Tulsa College of Law

As a law student at The University of Tulsa College of Law, I deeply admire its pivotal role in shaping our world, evident in every headline I read. Daily events prompt us to pause collectively and appreciate the freedoms and processes upheld by the law. So, for students and professionals, each Law Day presents an opportunity for reflection and honor, symbolizing solemnity, contemplation, and harmony within the legal realm, fueling our passion for the law.

On this important day, legal professionals and the wider community reflect on the impact of law in our daily lives. This focus on the rule of law promotes discussions about justice, equality, and the rights and responsibilities we all share. For those in the legal field, this day is significant. It reminds us of our progress, future direction, and upcoming challenges.

In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established Law Day to honor governance under the rule of law. Congress later declared May 1 as the official day to celebrate Law Day in 1961. This tradition continues today, spreading globally to celebrate legal principles and their importance in numerous nations. Celebrating Law Day does more than commemorate past legal milestones—it also serves as an opportunity for legal education and engagement with the wider public. Through organized talks, workshops, and community events, legal professionals can bridge the knowledge gap and explain complex legal principles in accessible ways. Looking back at past legal decisions that shaped our laws and norms honors those who championed justice. Their legacies live on, not only in the precedents they have set but also in the inspiration they provide for the ongoing pursuit of equity under the law.

Law Day encourages us to look ahead, considering how the legal field will adjust to new challenges and opportunities. The advancement of technology has impacted the legal sector as well. Law Day highlights digital changes in law like automation, online dispute resolution, and the ethical and privacy issues these innovations bring. With the increasing acknowledgment of the link between societal and ecological welfare, Law Day discussions commonly focus on environmental law and social justice movements. Legal experts lead these discussions, striving to establish and implement laws safeguarding our planet and its residents.

Beyond the intellectual and educational aspects, Law Day is a symbolic gathering of legal professionals and enthusiasts, highlighting their shared commitment to the rule of law. The legal profession is rich in diverse traditions and practices. Law Day celebrates this diversity, honoring the contributions of legal communities worldwide. Whether you're a judge, attorney, paralegal, or law librarian, Law Day emphasizes the common professional dedication to serving society through justice. It's a day for lawyers to reflect on their oath and for others to recognize the virtues of the legal profession.

In essence, Law Day is more than just a date on the calendar. It's a day that urges us to amplify the voices of reason, fairness, and order heard in the halls of justice. It's a time to reflect on our legal history and prepare for the legal challenges ahead. It's a day to unite in a world that can feel divided at times. For legal professionals and all who value the law's impact and significance, Law Day is a strong yearly reminder to honor the past, engage in the present, and plan for a future that respects the rights of every individual. It's truly important, and observing it is crucial for promoting an informed and fair society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kaitlin Pogue is a 1L who plans to graduate in May 2026. She is Vice President of the Education and Oklahoma Policy Club, Class Representative of the American Constitution Society, Speaker Pro Tempore and Class Delegate of the Student Bar Association, Law School Senator for Student Government Association, and a member of the Professional Development Student Advisory Board, Women’s Law Caucus, Paw Law Club, Criminal Law Club, Family Law Club, Tulsa County Bar Association, American Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Association.

CERTIFIED COURTROOM REPORTER –

TULSA COUNTY

Position: Certified Shorthand Reporter (District Judge and Pool Openings)

Location: Tulsa County Courthouse, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Hiring Officials: District Judges Kevin Gray and Doug Drummond, Court Administrator, Kim Hall (pool positions)

Salary: Pursuant to Statute

Benefits: State paid annual and sick leave, insurance, and retirement

Necessary Qualifications: Certified by the Oklahoma CSR Board and as required by Oklahoma Statutes

Resumes should be directed to: Kim Hall, Court Administrator

Tulsa County Courthouse, 500 S. Denver, Room 637

Tulsa,OK 74103

kim.hall@oscn.net

(918) 596-5400

Split Jury

RANTOL Rollers - Riggs Abney

Pro Bowlno - Legal Aid

Motion to Strike

Great Balls of Fire

Graves McLanes, PLLC - Team 2

Graves McLanes, PLLC - Team 1

GableGotwals

Flying Elvises

Brew Crew - PrayWalker

The Dude Abides

The Fatlocks V

TEAMS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION !

Pounders - Atkinson, Brit-

Gladd, Fiasco & Edmonds

Stay tuned for the Winning team a nnouncement in the m ay iSSue!

Pocket

tingham,

Pinitive Damages - Carr & Carr Attorneys at Law

The Gutter Gang - Titus, Hillis, Reynolds, Love

The Lords of Pinterfell - Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson

Gr apevine News

Doerner, Saunders, Daniel & Anderson, LLP (DSDA) is pleased to announce the addition of Bradley A. Grundy, Amir M. Farzaneh, Katelyn N. Wade, and Holly R. Fisher Brad and Holly will strengthen the firm’s Tulsa office as part of DSDA’s Family Law practice group. Amir and Kate will enhance the firm’s Oklahoma City presence in the area of Immigration Law.

Joining the firm as a partner, Brad has 34 years of extensive experience advising clients in family law. He provides legal representation across a variety of areas, including alimony, arbitration and mediation, child custody, divorce, domestic relations, equitable division, litigation, marital settlement agreements, and prenuptial agreements. Brad earned his juris doctorate from the University of Notre Dame Law School. Before attending law school, he completed his undergraduate studies at Southern Methodist University.

Amir is an accomplished immigration lawyer and a partner of DSDA. He brings over 27 years of immigration law experience and has been honored twice as a “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers® in America for his achievements in immigration law. His knowledge spans a broad range of complex immigration matters, including family-based immigration matters, employment-based immigration matters, criminally related immigration matters, immigration Court proceedings, Federal Court proceedings, and consular processing. In addition, he serves as an adjunct

professor for Oklahoma City University and the University of Oklahoma. Amir graduated with his Juris Doctorate from Oklahoma City University School of Law and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Radiologic Technology –Nuclear Medicine from the University of Oklahoma.

Kate is an experienced associate attorney, who helps clients with employment-based petitions, work visas, family petitions, citizenship applications, work authorization cards, deportation defense, waivers, and appeals. She is registered with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to practice before the Immigration Courts as well as the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). She also has experience working with multiple agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labor, United States Immigration & Citizenship Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to handle a broad range of immigration issues. Kate earned her Juris Doctorate from the Oklahoma City University School of Law as a Merit Scholar and landed on the Dean’s List for being an outstanding academic student. Previously, she obtained her undergraduate degree in SociologyCriminology from the University of Oklahoma.

Holly joins DSDA as a skilled paralegal with more than 30 years of legal experience in a wide range of practice areas, including family law, civil litigation, estate planning, probate, and real estate. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Tulsa.

MCDANIEL ACORD, PLLC IS RECRUITING

A LITIGATION ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY for the firm’s Tulsa office to assist our clients in civil litigation and family law within a strong team setting that focuses on client service and maximizing outcomes. Our practice includes challenging procedural and technical issues, and the successful candidate will possess strong analytical and advocacy skills. Our Firm provides excellent benefits and rewards performance. We are looking for the right attorney to join our team who will take pride in the service we deliver and fit within our family-oriented, friendly, and low-key firm environment. Candidates should have 2 to 5 years litigation experience that reflects skill in legal research, drafting memoranda, briefs and discovery, taking depositions, managing document production, and oral argument. Candidates should submit a recent writing sample and CV to smcdaniel@ok-counsel.com

ESTABLISHED SMALL DOWNTOWN TULSA

LAW FIRM within walking distance of state and federal courthouses seeks an attorney for office sharing arrangement. Interested individuals should send a resume to info@legalok.com with the subject line “Position DG.”

2023-2024 TCBA CONTACTS, COMMITTEE & SECTION CHAIRS

www.tulsabar.com

PHONE: 918-584-5243 FAX: 918-592-0208

1446 South Boston, Tulsa, OK 74119-3612

Executive Director

Tami Williams tamiw@tulsabar.com

Ext. 1002

Membership Director

CLE, Sections & Committees

Heather Heck heatherh@tulsabar.com

Ext. 1001

Front Desk Coordinator

General Inquiries

frontdesk@tulsabar.com

Ext. 1000

Accounting accounting@tulsabar.com

Lawyer Referral & Community Resource Navigator

Jeril Haug jerilh@tulsabar.com

Ext. 1003

Tulsa Lawyer Editor - Michael Taubman michael@tulsafirm.com

Associate Editor - Milly Dunlap

Tulsa Lawyer Submissions - tulsabarnews@yahoo.com

TCBA OFFICERS

President ...................................................................Mike Esmond

Past President...............................................................Philip Hixon

President-Elect....................................................Stephanie Jackson

Vice President......................................................Michael Taubman

Secretary....................................................................... Lizzie Riter

Treasurer..................................................................... Austin Birnie

Budget/Internal Operations.......................................Barrett Powers

Foundation President ..................................................Justin Munn

Director at Large (1) Large Firm.................................Austin Birnie

Director at Large (2) Large Firm................................ Natalie Sears

Director at Large (1) Medium Firm.........................Jennifer Struble

Director at Large (2) Medium Firm..................................Kara Pratt

Director at Large (1) Small Firm............................Linda Morrissey

Director at Large (2) Small Firm..................................Mark Smith

Director at Large (2) Public Sector.................. Judge April Seibert

ABA Delegate............................................................. Molly Aspan

OBA Delegate..............................................................Philip Hixon

Library Trustee (1)..................................................... Kim Vojvoda

Library Trustee (2)........................................................ Julie Evans

Presiding Judge .......................................... Hon. Dawn Moody

Chief Judge, U.S. District Court ...................Hon. John F. Heil, III

Chief Judge, Tulsa Municipal Court..........Hon. Gerald Hofmeister

TU Law School Student Representative ..............Taylor Williams

TU Law School Representative..................................Natalie Leone

YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION BOARD

YLD Chair.........................................................Colton Richardson

YLD Chair Elect...................................................Lacy Williamson

YLD Vice President........................................................Kyle Trice

YLD Treasurer......................................................Pierre Robertson

YLD Secretary..........................................................Kaia Kennedy

FOUNDATION APPOINTMENTS

Law Day Co-Chairs ..............Tana Van Cleave and Mary Clement

Community Outreach................................................

Ashley Webb

Golf Co-Chairs..............................Billy Duncan & Michael Thelen

Scholarship Chair........................................................Randy Lewin

FOUNDATION

President.....................................................................Justin Munn

Vice President...........................................................Billy Duncan

Treasurer...........................................................Catherine Hoopert

Trustee........................................................................Jim Gotwals

Trustee...........................................................................Ann Keele

Trustee..........................................................................Rick White

Trustee...............................................................Michael Taubman

Trustee.........................................................................Lizzie Riter

Trustee ..................................................................Chad McLain

Trustee .......................................................................Kara Vincent

TCBA President.......................................................Mike Esmond

TCBA Pres. Elect..............................................Stephanie Jackson

COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS

Access to Justice...............................................Pansy Moore-Shrier

Animal Law .............Katy Inhofe

Bench & Bar........................................................Kevinn Matthews

Bench & Bar Co-Chair ...........Diana Cupps

Children & the Law.......................................................Lizzie Riter

Children & the Law Vice Chair..........Timothy Michaels-Johnson

CLE..................................................................Pansy Moore-Shrier

Diversity Development...........................................Marvin Lizama

Diversity Development Vice-Chair ...........Matt Ingham

Fee Arbitration.............................................................Scott Savage

Law Related Education / Street Law.............................Co-chairs

.......................................................Pierre Robertson , Kara Vincent

Lawyer Referral .........Karen Wilkins

Membership Services.......................................................Kara Pratt

Mentoring ........................................................ ........Shena Burgess

Military/Veterans ......Mitchell Garrett

Military/Veterans Co-Chair... ...Hon. David Guten

Nominations & Awards ...........Philip Hixon

Pro Bono................................................................. Mac Finlayson

Professionalism .............Rick White

Public Relations/Social Media ..................................Collaborative

Special Events ..........Natalie Sears

Tulsa Lawyer................................................... ...Michael Taubman

Young Lawyers Division...................................Colton Richardson

SECTION CHAIRPERSONS

ADR/Mediation...........................................................Diana Cupps

Bankruptcy ..Hon. Paul Thomas

Business/Corporate..........................................Whitney Humphrey

Criminal Law ............Daniel Levy

Energy & Mineral Law.............................................Buford Pollett

Employment Law ............................................ ........Jessica Vaught

Family Law Co-Chairs..........................Anastasia Krich-Mahoney

..............................................................................Jordan Dalgleish

Health Law ...................................................... ......................Open

Juvenile Law. ............Lizzie Riter

Juvenile Law Co-Chair........................Timothy Michaels-Johnson

Litigation.......................................................... Stephanie Jackson, ............................................Mbilike Mwafulirwa, and Mark Smith

Municipal Law..................................................Rhiannon Thoreson

Paralegals/Legal Assistant....................................Kathryn Keener

Paralegal /Legal Assistants Vice Chair.....................Gloria Jones

Probate/Estate/Elder Co-chairs................................. ...Kelly Jones

................................................................................Phillip Jennings

Solo/Small Firm .......................................................Mary Clement

Tax............................................................................John Gotwals

Technology .....................................................Pansy Moore-Shrier Workers Comp...........................................................Valerie Evans

* Section Chairs will be updated as positions are filled