The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied a request from the Oklahoma Bar Association to immediately suspend attorney Spencer Bowen Housley from practicing law despite his convictions for battery and public intoxication in multiple criminal cases.
The court issued its order on Dec. 15, 2025, in *State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Housley* (2025 OK 93), after reviewing certified copies of criminal proceedings against the attorney. The Oklahoma Bar Association had sought the suspension under Rules 7.1 and 7.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings.
According to court documents, Housley was found guilty of battery and public intoxication charges in two separate criminal cases. The first case, E03488328, included a criminal complaint filed on Oct. 16, 2023, with a judgment and sentence filed on Sept. 17, 2024. The second case, E0168533, involved a criminal complaint filed on Oct. 23, 2025, with an accompanying judgment and sentence.
The bar association also provided the court with an affidavit from *City of Moore v. Spencer B. Housley*, dated Oct. 15, 2023, as part of its evidence supporting the suspension request.
Under the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, certified copies of criminal convictions serve as conclusive evidence for attorney disciplinary proceedings. Rule 7.2 specifically states that such documents "shall constitute the charge and be conclusive evidence of the commission of the crime upon which the judgment and sentence is based and shall suffice as the basis for discipline in accordance with these rules."
The disciplinary rules also grant the Oklahoma Supreme Court broad authority to suspend attorneys immediately upon receiving certified copies of criminal convictions. Rule 7.3 provides that "upon receipt of the certified copies of Judgment and Sentence on a plea of guilty, order deferring judgment and sentence, indictment or information and the judgment and sentence, the Supreme Court may by order immediately suspend the lawyer from the practice of law until further order of the Court."
Rather than immediately suspending Housley, the court directed the Professional Responsibility Tribunal to hold a hearing on whether an immediate interim suspension should be entered and to make a recommendation. This procedural step demonstrates the court's careful consideration of the disciplinary action despite the criminal convictions.
The charges against Housley included battery and public intoxication, both of which can raise questions about an attorney's fitness to practice law. Battery charges typically involve unlawful physical contact with another person, while public intoxication involves being under the influence of alcohol or drugs in a public place to a degree that presents a danger to oneself or others.
For attorneys, criminal convictions can trigger disciplinary proceedings that may result in suspension, disbarment, or other sanctions. The legal profession maintains high standards of conduct, and criminal behavior often reflects adversely on an attorney's character and fitness to represent clients.
The Oklahoma Bar Association's decision to seek immediate interim suspension rather than allowing the normal disciplinary process to proceed suggests the organization viewed Housley's convictions as serious enough to warrant immediate action to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession.
However, the Supreme Court's denial of the immediate suspension request indicates the justices determined that such drastic action was not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. The court's decision to order a hearing before the Professional Responsibility Tribunal suggests a preference for a more deliberative approach to the disciplinary action.
The Professional Responsibility Tribunal serves as an investigative and hearing body for attorney disciplinary matters in Oklahoma. The tribunal's recommendation will likely influence the Supreme Court's ultimate decision on what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Housley.
This case highlights the balance courts must strike between protecting the public from potentially unfit attorneys and ensuring due process for legal professionals facing disciplinary action. While criminal convictions provide strong evidence of misconduct, immediate suspension represents a severe sanction that can effectively end an attorney's career.
The timing of the criminal cases spanning from 2023 to 2025 suggests a pattern of behavior that concerned the bar association enough to seek immediate action. The multiple convictions across different time periods may have influenced the organization's decision to pursue the most serious disciplinary remedy available.
The court's order was marked "FOR PUBLICATION IN OBJ ONLY. NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION," indicating it will appear in the Oklahoma Bar Journal but not in official court reporters. This designation is common for attorney disciplinary orders that serve primarily to inform the legal community rather than establish binding precedent.
The case remains ongoing as the Professional Responsibility Tribunal considers whether to recommend suspension or other disciplinary measures. Housley continues to practice law pending the tribunal's recommendation and any subsequent action by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.