Oklahoma Supreme Court denies Tracy Kane Carey’s bid to rejoin bar, cites tax and competency concerns

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Oct. 14, 2025, denied the petition of Tracy Kane Carey to be reinstated to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association, finding she failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she currently possesses the competency and moral character required to practice law.

The court, writing for the panel, said Carey had been suspended for nonpayment of dues in June 2011 and stricken from the roll of attorneys in June 2012. Carey filed a petition for reinstatement on Nov. 25, 2024. After a Professional Responsibility Tribunal trial panel hearing, the panel recommended denying reinstatement, and the court conducted a de novo review of the record before reaching its decision.

Why it matters: Reinstatement petitions after a long absence are governed by the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings (RGDP) and require the petitioner to prove present competency, moral character, and that the petitioner has not engaged in unauthorized practice during suspension. The court emphasized that applicants removed from active status for more than five years must show they have kept current in the law and demonstrated competency comparable to practicing attorneys.

What the record shows: The opinion summarizes extensive factual material from the trial record. Carey was admitted to the bar in September 2010. Following her removal from the roll, she worked in various nonlegal positions, including as a child welfare specialist for the Department of Human Services and roles at CASA of Northeast Oklahoma; she also owned small businesses and later worked as a house cleaner. Carey submitted affidavits from several county court clerks and a list of eight witnesses, plus CLE documentation showing 28.5 hours of continuing legal education (including ethics) and one CLE class dated Oct. 24, 2024.

The Professional Responsibility Commission’s investigator identified discrepancies between Carey’s reinstatement questionnaire and other information and testified the investigator had unresolved questions about unfiled income tax returns. The trial panel found Carey had not established good moral character or that she presently possesses the competency and learning in the law required for reinstatement; it noted two principal concerns: failure to file tax returns for multiple years (2018–2024) and insufficient evidence of current legal competence.

The court’s reasoning: On de novo review the Supreme Court agreed with the trial panel that Carey had not met her burden. The opinion observed that, while Carey reported reading many books in the prior year and completing CLE hours, those efforts did not equal the continuing education and practice experience of active attorneys and therefore did not demonstrate present competency. The court also pointed to procedural deficiencies in Carey’s petition: failure to attach a complete affidavit covering the full suspension period, failure to submit a final witness list to the bar’s general counsel as required by RGDP 11.3, and delays or failures in responding to the bar investigator’s inquiries.

Tax filings and moral character: The opinion treated Carey’s failure to file federal and state income tax returns for tax years stated in the record as a significant factor bearing on moral character and fitness to practice, citing precedent in prior reinstatement decisions where prolonged nonfiling was held to demonstrate unfitness.

Disposition and next steps: The court denied the petition for reinstatement. Pursuant to RGDP, the court ordered Carey to pay costs associated with the proceeding (amount listed in the opinion) and stated she must wait at least one year from the date of the denial before applying again for reinstatement.

The opinion cites RGDP 11.1–11.6 and ORPC rules governing practice and continuing legal education as the governing authorities and references trial panel reports and a series of prior reinstatement decisions that guided its analysis.