TCBA Seeking Liberty Bell Award Nominations Sought

The Liberty Bell Award was established more than 50 years ago to acknowledge outstanding community service. The Liberty Bell is presented to a non-lawyer who has promoted better understanding of the rule of law, encouraged greater respect for law and the courts, stimulated a sense of civic responsibility, or contributed to good government in the community. The Liberty Bell Award is one of the most prestigious awards the Tulsa County Bar Foundation can bestow on an individual or group of individuals.

Nominees may be an individual or a group that has:

1984 Lois McIlroy 1988 Mary Jo Speaker 1989 Nancy McDonald 1990 Lynn Jones 1991 George Singer 1992 Jill Tarbel 1993 Ha Thi Crick 1994 Steven Dow 1995 Michael Reggio 1996 Marty Mundell 1997 Winona Tanaka 1998 Kim Camp 1999 Harriet Morgan 2000 Sally Howe-Smith 2001 Sandra K. Cousins 2003 Chester Cadieux 2004 Jane Kolesnik 2005 Channel 2 2006 Tuesday Morning Miracle Workers 2007 Hamilton 6th Grade Teachers 2008 Community Service Council of Greater Tulsa 2009 Theresa Hansen 2010 Sherri Carrier 2011 Cortez Tunley & Tava Slocum 2012 Ralph Schaefer 2013 Cheryl Conklin 2014 Disabled American Veterans 2015 Bill Braun 2016 Julie Delcour 2017 Suzane Stewart 2018 Amley "Popsey" Floyd 2019 Christine Po 2019 Karen Keith 2020 Not Awarded 2021 Candace Pierce 2022 Michael Willis

By Richard D. White, TCBA Professionalism Chair

I periodically speak at a Single Again Conference addressing the perils of divorce litigation. I recently asked the audience a question, “Would it bother you to learn your lawyer has a good relationship with your spouse’s lawyer and the two of them are actually friends.” I was surprised to see 80% of the audience raise their hand acknowledging this would indeed bother them. It confirms a misconception too many clients have of the role of their attorneys as combatants in a battle in which opposing counsel is not only a legal adversary but the enemy. As professionals we must not succumb to this mindset. I recently concluded a six year legal battle where this concept was demonstrated. I represented a client on what I thought was a simple matter of collecting a fine assessed by a homeowner’s association (“HOA”) against a homeowner for violation of a restrictive covenant. I filed a lawsuit seeking judgment for the fines assessed by the HOA. The Defendant’s counsel filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking damages for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. I filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The case seemed open and shut. My opposing counsel, in my view, was not open to what I thought was a reasonable compromise. In responding to my attempts to find a resolution I was met by what I perceived to be aggressive and unduly harsh rhetoric in this attorney’s correspondence. It appeared the case had become personal. This attorney made voluminous discovery requests demanding I produce literally every record possessed by my client. It appeared to me opposing counsel was attempting to uncover wrongdoing by the HOA. There was nothing to uncover. A discovery dispute resulted in defense counsel filing a Motion to Compel. A hearing was conducted and oral arguments were presented. There was no ruling on the motion. Not long afterward counsel filed a Motion for Sanctions accusing me of attempting to perpetuate a fraud on the court. This was followed by the taking of my deposition. Ironically, having served discovery upon Defendant’s counsel I received a response objecting to every one of my requests. I then filed a Motion to Compel. An acrimonious hearing was held on the Motion for Sanctions and the Motion to Compel. I was angry and insulted and it showed. The judge denied the Motion for Sanctions and ordered the two of us to sit down and try to come to an agreement on the remaining discovery issues.