Background
Margaret Jean Lowery was licensed to practice law in Oklahoma in 1987. In January 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended her for thirty days after finding she made false statements about a judge and made knowing false statements during her Illinois disciplinary proceeding, violating Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a), 8.2(a), and 8.4(c). Oklahoma imposed reciprocal discipline — a thirty-day suspension — for the same conduct in State of Okla. ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Lowery, 2023 OK 54, 531 P.3d 99.
Shortly after the 2023 Illinois suspension, Lowery made additional false statements. In a filing before the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), she accused Judge Andrew Gleeson of threatening to make her “homeless and living under a bridge.” Judge Gleeson testified he had never spoken with Lowery and never made such a statement, a finding the Hearing Board credited as true. Lowery also made a series of social media posts on her X account accusing the Illinois Supreme Court and ARDC of harassing female attorneys into suicide, comparing the court to Nazis, accusing retired Chief Justice Anne Burke of antisemitism, and suggesting Judge Gleeson received a judgeship appointment as corrupt payment for services rendered in a divorce proceeding.
The Illinois ARDC filed a six-count First Amended Complaint in February 2024. Lowery filed numerous motions to continue the May 2024 hearing, citing medical reasons, all of which were denied for lack of evidentiary support. She failed to appear at the hearing even after being offered remote participation. The Illinois Hearing Board found her conduct violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 8.2(a), and 8.4(c) by clear and convincing evidence and recommended disbarment. The Illinois Review Board affirmed, and on January 15, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Lowery’s petition and disbarred her. Oklahoma initiated this reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under Rule 7.7 of the Oklahoma Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP).
The Court’s Holding
The Oklahoma Supreme Court, reviewing the matter de novo, disbarred Lowery from the practice of law in Oklahoma. The court found that the Illinois disciplinary record — including the Hearing Board and Review Board Reports and Recommendations and the Illinois Supreme Court’s order — constituted prima facie evidence of misconduct and that Lowery violated Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC) 3.3(a)(1), 8.2(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c), as well as Rule 1.3 of the RGDP. The court rejected Lowery’s objections, which it characterized as an improper attempt to relitigate issues already decided and rejected by the Illinois tribunals, rather than presenting evidence that the Illinois discipline lacked evidentiary support as required under Rule 7.7(b), RGDP.
The court rejected Lowery’s arguments that the Illinois order was void for lack of jurisdiction (finding Illinois retained jurisdiction over her notwithstanding her claimed retirement status), lack of due process (finding she was offered remote participation and failed to appear), insufficiency of evidence (finding she had admitted to the social media posts before the Hearing Board), and fraud on the tribunal (finding a certified transcript was in fact part of the record). The court also held that Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), did not apply, as that precedent governs federal bar disbarment predicated on a state disbarment, not one state’s reciprocal disbarment proceeding predicated on another state’s disbarment.
Weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court found significant aggravation in Lowery’s prior discipline for nearly identical misconduct, her pattern of filing voluminous pleadings containing conclusory statements unsupported by law or fact, her complete lack of remorse, her refusal to accept responsibility, and the harm her false public statements posed to public confidence in the judiciary. The court found minimal mitigation — only that she timely notified the OBA of the Illinois disbarment — and concluded that disbarment was the only appropriate sanction. All justices concurred.
Key Takeaways
- Under Rule 7.7, RGDP, Oklahoma imposes reciprocal discipline when an attorney is disciplined in another jurisdiction; the scope of review is limited to whether the foreign discipline lacked evidentiary support or does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma — it is not an opportunity to relitigate the underlying facts.
- False statements made in disciplinary pleadings accusing a judge of threatening conduct, combined with social media posts recklessly impugning the integrity of judges and a state supreme court, violate ORPC 3.3(a)(1), 8.2(a), and 8.4(c) and can support disbarment.
- Repeat misconduct of the same character following prior discipline, absence of remorse, and a pattern of baseless, high-volume filings are significant aggravating factors that can elevate discipline to disbarment even where mitigation exists.
- An attorney’s claimed retirement status in one jurisdiction does not automatically divest that jurisdiction’s disciplinary authority, particularly where the attorney retains an active license in another state.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Oklahoma courts will give substantial deference to out-of-state disciplinary findings in reciprocal proceedings and that respondent-attorneys face a high burden to avoid identical discipline — they must demonstrate the foreign record lacks evidentiary support, not merely challenge the correctness of those findings. Attorneys who unsuccessfully sought to relitigate foreign discipline should take note that such attempts, if unsupported by law or evidence, may themselves become aggravating circumstances.
More broadly, the case stands alongside State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass’n v. Durbin, 2025 OK 77, 579 P.3d 653, as a clear warning that social media attacks on judicial officers — however framed as whistleblowing or First Amendment expression — expose attorneys to the most severe professional sanction when the statements are knowingly or recklessly false. The decision underscores that repeated violations of the same ethical rules, despite prior discipline, will be treated as demonstrating a fundamental unwillingness to conform to professional standards and will ordinarily result in disbarment.