Two Files, One Conflict: Oklahoma's Solicitor General Filed a Lawsuit That Named His Own State as a Defendant

By Ron Durbin | Guerrilla News

On April 20, 2026, a foreclosure petition landed in Tulsa County District Court. The case number is CJ-2026-1754. The plaintiff was Mabrey Bank. The attorney of record was Garry M. Gaskins II, Oklahoma's Solicitor General, filing through Drummond Law, PLLC, the private firm owned by his boss, Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Drummond Law paid the $328.39 court filing fee. The court receipt names the payor: Drummond Law.

The defendant list included the homeowners, their homeowners association, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Oklahoma Tax Commission, a primary agency of the State of Oklahoma.

Read that again. The state's number three legal officer, the man paid $205,485 a year to defend the state in its most important cases, filed a private lawsuit that required the state to hire its own lawyer to respond.

Why the Tax Commission Is on the Defendant List

Before going further, the mechanics of this need to be understood honestly. When a private bank forecloses on a property, it must name every party with a legal claim on that property to clear the title. If the homeowner owes unpaid state taxes, the Oklahoma Tax Commission automatically holds a statutory lien. Under 68 O.S. § 234, all unpaid state taxes, interest, and penalties constitute a lien in favor of the State of Oklahoma on all property of the person owing the tax. Under 68 O.S. § 231, tax warrants carry the force and effect of a judgment, creating a powerful encumbrance against real property.

A foreclosing bank must name the Tax Commission as a defendant to legally extinguish, subordinate, or force a payout of the state's lien. The administrative rules of the Tax Commission require it. Failure to name the state leaves the title clouded and the tax deed defective. The IRS gets named in foreclosures constantly. The Tax Commission is no different.

Any competent real estate attorney in Oklahoma does this routinely. It is standard practice. The question is not whether naming the Tax Commission was proper. The question is who is doing it.

The Solicitor General v. the State of Oklahoma

Under 74 O.S. § 18b, the Attorney General has the statutory duty to appear for the state and defend all actions in which the state is interested as a party. The Solicitor General operates as the chief appellate lawyer within that framework, directly handling the cases most significant to the state. His constitutional obligation is to protect state agencies, including the Tax Commission, and to defend the state treasury.

In Case CJ-2026-1754, that same Solicitor General is the private attorney prosecuting a case against the state. He is representing Mabrey Bank, a corporate client, seeking to extinguish a state tax lien to maximize the bank's financial recovery at the direct expense of the state treasury. The paradox is irreconcilable. He is simultaneously the constitutional defender and the private attacker of the same sovereign.

The OSCN docket confirms that the state recognized it had to respond. Charlotte Donoho, Assistant General Counsel for the Oklahoma Tax Commission, entered a formal appearance to defend the state. An agency attorney was forced to litigate against the state's own Solicitor General's private firm in open court.

What the Docket Actually Shows

The docket timeline matters because it tells a more complicated story than a clean exit. On April 20, 2026, Drummond Law filed the petition. It included two issues: breach of agreement (contract) and foreclosure. By April 28, all parties had been successfully served, including the Oklahoma Tax Commission, served on April 27, and the IRS, served on April 24 and again on May 4.

On May 1, Stonegate Homeowners Association entered its appearance and filed an answer. On May 6, the docket shows a partial dismissal without prejudice. That dismissal cleared issue number one, breach of contract, against the Tax Commission, the IRS, and two of the homeowner defendants, all in the same motion. This is a routine narrowing of an overbroad claim, not the Tax Commission fleeing a conflict.

The foreclosure count itself, issue number four on the docket, still lists the Oklahoma Tax Commission as a defendant with no dismissal against it. And the Tax Commission did not leave the file. On May 14, eight days after that partial dismissal, the State of Oklahoma, through the Tax Commission's own Assistant General Counsel, filed a formal answer and entered its appearance on the remaining counts. The IRS did the same on June 18, filing its own entry of appearance and answer. Both agencies are still active parties in a case that Oklahoma's own Solicitor General's private firm filed.

The Rules That Apply

Oklahoma's Rules of Professional Conduct govern every licensed attorney in the state, including the Solicitor General. Rule 1.7 addresses concurrent conflicts of interest. A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict. Such a conflict exists if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client, or if there is a significant risk that the representation of one client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another.

By filing a lawsuit against the Oklahoma Tax Commission, Gaskins, acting for Mabrey Bank, is acting directly adverse to the State of Oklahoma, his primary client as Solicitor General. Rule 1.7(b) allows waivers of some conflicts, but only if the lawyer reasonably believes competent representation can be provided to each client, and the representation does not involve one client asserting a claim against another client represented by the same lawyer. It is difficult to imagine a valid scenario in which the state's chief appellate defender secures informed consent from the state to sue the state. Disciplinary bodies routinely hold that a governmental client acting in the public trust cannot meaningfully consent to a conflict that harms the public treasury.

Rule 1.11 addresses the unique burdens on government lawyers. The principle is that a lawyer must be prevented from exploiting public office for the advantage of a private client. When a sitting high-level government attorney represents private clients in state courts, there is an inherent risk of undue influence. A district court judge in Tulsa County, presiding over the Mabrey Bank foreclosure, is aware that the private attorney standing before them is the Solicitor General, a figure who regularly argues before the appellate courts that review that judge's decisions. OBA Ethics Opinion No. 322 addresses similar principles, noting that public officials must not exploit their positions for private advantage or create an appearance of undue influence over the tribunal.

The Standard Nobody Applied

Oklahoma has already decided, in statute, that attorneys drawing a state paycheck from at least one of its law enforcement agencies should not run a private docket. 74 O.S. § 150.21 established the legal division of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and is explicit: "No attorney of the Bureau shall enter an appearance in a criminal action nor engage in private practice of the law while in the employment of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation." The restriction is titled directly into the code.

The legislature drew that line for the OSBI to prevent exactly the kind of conflict now playing out in Tulsa County. Nobody applied the same standard to the Solicitor General's office, a vastly more powerful position with a vastly higher salary. The Solicitor General earns $205,485. The OSBI attorneys who are barred from side practice earn considerably less.

None of this happened because a rule was broken. It happened because the rule that exists for one state legal office was never extended to another. The question for Oklahoma is whether that gap was an oversight or a feature.

Oklahomans decide whether Drummond moves one step closer to the governor's office in fifteen days. This is part of the record he is running on.

Both of these cases, the Blue Sky Bank lawsuit and the Mabrey Bank foreclosure, share one detail that the Oklahoma ethics rules address directly. It is not the conflict. It is not the salary. It is the name on the letterhead. That story is next.

Sources

1. Mabrey Bank v. Abel Duran Padilla et al. (Case No. CJ-2026-1754), District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, filed April 20, 2026 (OSCN docket)
2. Court Receipt #2026-4906254, Payor: Drummond Law, Amount: $328.39, filed April 20, 2026
3. Entry of Appearance and Answer of the State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, filed May 14, 2026 (Charlotte Donoho, Asst. General Counsel, OBA #22544)
4. Entry of Appearance and Answer of the United States of America ex rel. Internal Revenue Service, filed June 18, 2026
5. ORPC Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest, Current Clients, Oklahoma Statutes (Westlaw)
6. Ethics Opinion No. 322, Oklahoma Bar Association
7. 74 O.S. § 150.21, Legal Division Established, Duties, Restrictions, OSCN
8. Title 74, State Government, Oklahoma Code (Justia)
9. Blair v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (1997), Justia Law
10. Okla. Admin. Code § 710:1-3-80, Procedures for Partial Release of Tax Warrant or Lien, Cornell Law
11. "Title Issues for Oklahoma Tax Sale Properties," Jones Property Law
12. "Ethics for the Government Lawyer," Connecticut Bar Association
13. Proposed Rule 1.11: Special Conflicts of Interest for Government Officers, State Bar of California

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and journalistic purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All factual claims are sourced from public court dockets filed with the Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN), state payroll records published under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, and publicly available legal filings. Guerrilla News is an independent journalism outlet and is not affiliated with any political candidate, government agency, law firm, or financial institution discussed in this report.