Table of Contents
An Oklahoma attorney's battle with his own bar association has exploded into federal court after officials suspended him for speech they claim violated professional conduct rules. The twist? Everything he's accused of appears to be constitutionally protected criticism of government officials.
The Suspension That Started It All
Ron Durbin was suspended by the Oklahoma Bar Association for a series of actions that read like a First Amendment textbook: calling out a judge for alleged drinking and driving, posting videos of state officials dodging legal service, and leaving a profanity-laden note for the governor. The bar claims these actions constitute "conduct unbecoming" of an attorney.
But Durbin argues he never surrendered his constitutional rights when he took his oath as a lawyer. His suspension stems from investigating what he calls "drunk judge Sharon Holmes" and exposing corruption in state marijuana licensing. The bar's own complaint against him details protected speech activities, from publishing body camera footage of officials lying to process servers to criticizing racist comments made by judges.
When the Hunter Becomes the Hunted
After filing judicial complaints against multiple judges, Durbin received a telling response from Oklahoma Supreme Court Chief Justice John Kane. In a brief letter acknowledging the complaints had been "addressed," Kane revealed the court's action: absolutely nothing. No discipline, no consequences, no accountability for the officials Durbin exposed.
The same system that punished Durbin for his speech took no action against judges he documented engaging in allegedly criminal behavior. This selective enforcement became a central theme in his developing federal case against the entire Oklahoma legal establishment.
The Federal Lawsuit That Changed Everything
Monday marked a turning point when Durbin notified the bar association of his incoming federal lawsuit. The timing of what happened next raises serious questions about the integrity of their proceedings against him.
Durbin had been tried in absentia because officials scheduled hearings on dates he couldn't attend and banned electronic devices that would allow remote participation. He told them he would call witnesses during his portion of the trial, including himself.
But immediately after learning about the federal lawsuit, the bar association suddenly rested their case and refused to allow Durbin to call any witnesses, even himself. The reason given was absurd: if he wanted to testify, he should have attended every day of their proceeding.
The Accidental Email That Exposed Everything
What happened next was a prosecutor's dream and a defendant's nightmare, depending on which side you're on. The bar association's general counsel accidentally hit "reply all" on an email meant only for the trial panel members.
Instead of going just to the judges hearing Durbin's case, the email was sent to Durbin himself. In it, the general counsel discussed strategies for avoiding service of his federal lawsuit and coordinated with the very people supposed to be impartially judging him.
The smoking gun email revealed what Durbin had long alleged: the prosecuting authority and the judges were working together behind the scenes. This coordination between prosecutor and judge would be grounds for mistrial in any legitimate court proceeding.
Documents Sealed from a Case About Transparency
In another bizarre twist, Durbin received notice that the bar association had filed a motion to seal certain documents from public view. The trial panel allegedly granted this motion to keep records secret in a proceeding that's supposed to be about professional accountability.
There's just one problem: when Durbin checked the court docket, no such motion existed. The panel granted a motion to seal documents that was never actually filed. When Durbin requested the sealed documents, he was told to file his own motion and propose a protective order for materials he's never seen.
The irony is staggering. In a case where Durbin stands accused of improper conduct, he's demanding transparency while the bar association and courts are desperately trying to hide their own actions from public scrutiny.
The 321-Page Federal Complaint That Names Everyone
Durbin's federal response pulls no punches. His complaint spans 321 pages and names 67 defendants, from the Oklahoma Supreme Court down to individual security guards who violated his rights. The lawsuit seeks to dissolve the Oklahoma Bar Association entirely, arguing its existence violates attorneys' freedom of association rights.
But the most damning evidence may be what happens next. Durbin has requested an emergency hearing and plans to serve every defendant personally. After the bar association's general counsel accidentally revealed their coordination efforts, Durbin withdrew his offer to accept voluntary service.
The federal courts will now decide whether criticizing government officials is protected speech or grounds for professional discipline. The answer could reshape attorney regulation nationwide.
