The Oklahoma Supreme Court issued an order of immediate interim suspension against attorney David Phillip Spielman on December 15, 2025, in response to serious allegations of professional misconduct and criminal charges involving juvenile females.
The disciplinary action stems from a verified complaint filed by the Oklahoma Bar Association on November 14, 2025, seeking emergency interim suspension under Rules 6 and 6.2A of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The OBA filed the complaint with the concurrence of the Professional Responsibility Commission, requesting immediate suspension and related relief to preserve and recover funds.
According to the court's order in *State of Oklahoma ex rel. OBA v. Spielman* (2025 OK 94), the OBA presented evidence demonstrating that Spielman violated Rules 8.4(b) and (c) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Rule 1.3 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings. The alleged conduct poses "an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm," the court found.
The verified complaint details that the grievance involved "concerning activity related to several juvenile females." This conduct led to Spielman's arrest on felony stalking charges in *State of Oklahoma v. David Phillip Spielman*, Case No. MI-2025-1189, in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered Spielman to show cause why an emergency interim suspension should not be entered. Spielman filed a response to the court's order, but the details of his defense were not disclosed in the public order.
After reviewing both the OBA's verified complaint and application for emergency interim suspension, as well as Spielman's response, the court concluded that sufficient evidence existed to warrant immediate action. The court found that Spielman "has committed conduct in violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that poses an immediate threat of substantial and irreparable public harm."
Rule 8.4 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct governs attorney misconduct and prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Rule 1.3 of the disciplinary rules addresses various aspects of attorney conduct and professional responsibility.
Emergency interim suspensions represent one of the most serious disciplinary measures available to state bar associations and courts. Such suspensions are typically reserved for cases where an attorney's continued practice poses immediate danger to clients or the public. The mechanism allows for swift action to protect potential victims while formal disciplinary proceedings continue.
The case highlights the legal profession's commitment to self-regulation and public protection. When attorneys face serious criminal charges, particularly those involving allegations of harm to minors, bar associations must balance due process rights with the imperative to protect public safety.
The suspension prevents Spielman from practicing law in Oklahoma while the disciplinary proceedings advance. During an interim suspension, an attorney cannot represent clients, handle client funds, or engage in any activities that constitute the practice of law.
The OBA's request for relief to "preserve and recover funds" suggests potential concerns about client money or trust account irregularities, though the order does not specify details about any financial misconduct. Such protective measures are common in disciplinary cases where attorneys face criminal charges or other conduct that might compromise their ability to properly handle client affairs.
Spielman's criminal case in Oklahoma County will proceed separately from the disciplinary proceedings. Criminal charges and attorney disciplinary matters operate under different standards of proof and serve different purposes. While criminal courts focus on punishment and deterrence, disciplinary proceedings aim to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
The timing of the disciplinary action—filed shortly after the criminal arrest—demonstrates the bar association's proactive approach to addressing potential threats to public safety. Legal ethics rules require attorneys to report serious misconduct by their colleagues, and bar associations must investigate and act swiftly when credible allegations emerge.
The case also underscores the particular sensitivity surrounding allegations involving minors. The legal profession maintains strict ethical standards regarding attorney conduct, and allegations of inappropriate contact with juveniles trigger immediate scrutiny and protective measures.
While the immediate suspension addresses urgent public safety concerns, Spielman retains certain due process rights throughout the disciplinary proceedings. He may seek reinstatement if charges are dropped or if he successfully defends against the allegations, though the bar would need to determine whether his conduct meets professional standards regardless of criminal case outcomes.
The case will likely proceed through formal disciplinary hearings where both sides can present evidence and arguments about appropriate sanctions. Potential outcomes range from public reprimand to permanent disbarment, depending on the severity of proven misconduct.
This disciplinary action reflects ongoing efforts by state bar associations nationwide to maintain professional standards and protect the public from attorney misconduct. The immediate suspension mechanism provides a crucial tool for addressing urgent situations while preserving the integrity of formal disciplinary processes.