Case Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Danielle M. Mathey, WSB #7-4956

Citation: 2021 WY 35

Docket Number: D-21-0001

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2021 WY 35
October Term, A.D. 2020
February 24, 2021
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
’. D-21-0001
DANIELLE M. MATHEY, WSB
#74956,
Respondent.
ORDER OF DISBARMENT

[1] This matter came before the Court upon the Board of Professional Responsibility’s,
“Report and Recommendation for Disbarment,” filed herein February 9, 2021, pursuant to
Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (stipulated discipline). The
Court, after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation and the file finds that the
Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court,
‘and that Respondent Danielle M. Mathey should be disbarred. It is, therefore,

[12] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Disbarment,” which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court;
and itis further

 

[43] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduct set forth in the
“Report and Recommendation for Disbarment,” Respondent Danielle M. Mathey shall be,
and hereby is, disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further

 

[4] ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with the requirements of the Wyoming,
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, particularly the requirements found in Rule 21 of those
rules, That rule governs the duties of disbarred and suspended attorneys; and it is further
[15] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Respondent shall pay the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $100.00, which
represents the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay administrative fees of
$1,500.00, Respondent shall pay the total amount of $1,600.00 to the Wyoming State Bar
‘on or before April 30, 2021. If Respondent fails to make payment in the time allotted,
execution may issue on the award; and itis further

 

 

[16] ORDERED that the Wyoming State Bar may issue the stipulated press release
contained in the “Report and Recommendation for Disbarment”; and it is further

[47] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Disbarment,
along with the incorporated “Report and Recommendation for Disbarment,” as a matter
‘coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and itis further

[18] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this Onder’ of Disbarment, along with the incorporated “Report and
Recommendation for Disbarment,” shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the
Pacific Reporter; and it s further

 

[19] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Disbarment
to be served upon Respondent Danielle M. Mathey.

[410] DATED this 24% day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
sf

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
INTHE SUPREME,
court

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF WYOMING } FEB ~9 2021
ete mater of ) Sasa
DANIELLE M. MATHEY, d ew
WSB # 7-4956, j WSB Nos. 2018-002 and 2020-029
Respondent 3 p-21-0001

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISBARMENT

‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Panel ofthe Board of Professional Responsibility
Via telephone conference call on the 2 day of February, 2021, for consideration of the parties"
Stipulation for Disbarment pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure. Present on the call were Review Panel members Debra J. Wendtland (Chair),
Katherine Strike, and Tandy Dockery. Melinda S. McCorkle, Deputy Bar Counsel, appeared on
behalf of the Wyoming State Bar. Respondent Danielle M. Mathey appeared with her counsel,
Elizabeth Greenwood. The Review Pane! having reviewed the Stipulation, the supporting
Affidavit, and victim impact leters from both Complainants, and being fully advised in the
premises, finds, concludes and recommends:

Bindings

L ‘Respondent was first admitted to practice law in New York in 2006. She was
‘admitted in Nevada in 2010 and in Wyoming in 2012. Respondent practiced law in Green River
from 2012 until 2020. ‘On May 14, 2020, Respondent changed her status with the Wyoming
‘State Bar from “active” to “inactive.” On July 27, 2020, Respondent voluntarily withdrew her
membership in the Wyoming State Bar. Respondent acknowledges that though her bar
‘membership bas been withdrawn, she remains subject to dscipine pursuant fo the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure.
 

2 On March 14, 2016, Lyman residents Jack and Marianne Bluemel hired
‘Respondent to file a lawsuit on behalf of their company, JAMA Enterprises, LLC, against RPM
Elite, Inc. et.al. ("RPM suit”) seeking damages in the amount of $39,075.27 for breach of
contract.

3. OnMarch 14, 2016, Ms, Bluemel emailed Respondent with information to pursue
‘the case against RPM. On May 10, 2016, Ms, Bluemel emailed Respondent with anew place of
‘employment for one of the defendants in the RPM suit. Respondent responded, “Thank you
Marianne. Things are moving along, but tis wil help immensely.”

4. On September 26, 2016, Ms. Biuemel emailed Respondent requesting a status
‘update on her cases as she had not heard from Respondent in four months. On November 5,
2016, Respondent responded to her email, stating:

Hello Marianne,

| deeply apologize that it has taken so long to respond to your email. For some

+eason, it got misdirected to my spam and was not discovered until today, when T

‘ame to work to clean out my email mailbox.

‘Your cases are proceeding wel. The biggest delay was geting a judge who did

rot share your last name. Now I am waiting for your debtors to send me the

evidence they have, something they are required to do under the rules of

‘procedure. After that, I intend to move for judgment because the documentation

‘You sent me last spring is sufficient to finish the case. At that point, Iwill need an

‘affidavit from you to authenticate the evidence. How would you like to handle

that? Do you want to come to my office? I will probably file the motion in early

December.

5. On February 20, 2017, Respondeat told Ms. Bluemel Respondent would “get on”
‘the case, that there were no questions of fact forthe judge, that the Bluemels’ affidavits would be
‘authenticated and submitted tothe judge, and then they would wait for the court to act.
6

On April 5, 2017, Ms. Bluemel requested status update on the RPM suit.

Between April 2017 and February 28, 2018, Respondent did not call, email or otherwise
‘communicate with Ms. Blueme! regarding the case despite calls and emails from her.

2

‘On January 16, 2018, the Bluemes filed a complaint against Respondent with the

Office of Bar Counsel (“OBC”), On January 18, 2018, Bar Counsel sent the Bluemels' complaint

‘to Respondent and requested a response by February 10, 2018.

(On February 13, 2018, Respondent responded to Bar Counsel, stating that she

‘thought she was managing her workload until the complaint was fled:

Receipt of the Bluemels' complaint proved me wrong. It was an eye-opener in
‘many ways. Fist, the fact thatthe complaint was even made is evidence that my
‘mental health issues have caused me to allow a client to slip through the cracks.
OF greater concern to me was the extremity of my reaction. It was deeply
irrational and foreed me to acknowledge that I cannot get the help I need in
‘Sweetwater County. Despite my best efforts, Ihave violated my duty of diligence
and my duty to communicate, a fact which I deeply regret. Because T have
violated those duties, Ido not deserve to defend myself against the Bleumels [sic]
‘complaint and 1 will not defend myself, Instead, I seek to offer a proposition.

‘My proposal is based on the hope that the Wyoming Bar believes in rehabilitation
‘where possible. When I am stable, I am a good lawyer. If I cannot become stable,
I should not be practicing law.’ Therefore, 1 suggest the following: private
reprimand, contingent upon me successfully completing a course of treatment for
<epression and anxiety. The Bar, of cours, can set the standards for that success,
1nd can set the consequences for any potential failure. Given the truths that have
become apparent in the last few weeks, I must concede that inpatient treatment is
both necessary and appropriate. Reparations are also due to the Bluemels, and
they should receive what they requested in their complaint. I will refund any
‘amounts that they have paid my office, with my apologies, and will diligently
‘complete their cases, without charge.

9.

Upon receipt of Respondent's response to the Bluemel complaint, Bar Counsel

put the investigation on hold based upon Respondent's assurance that she would “diligently
complete their cases, without charge.”

10,

On February 28, 2018, Respondent informed Ms. Bluemel that Respondent was

“filing” something with the Court “today or tomorrow.”
11, On April 16, 2018, Respondent told Ms. Bluemel that Respondent needed
affidavits from the Bluemels, which they signed on April 26, 2018. Respondent spoke with Ms.
‘Biuemel again on April 23, 2018, stating that Respondent would mail a new affidavit to the court
and explaining that once an order is entered, a gamishment can be sent to the employers and
‘Payment would then be made to the clerk of court. Respondent told Ms. Bluemel that it took
four years forthe judge to sign an Order ina different case.

12. On May 24, 2018, Shannon Howshar, Assistant to Bar Counsel, called
‘Respondent regarding the status of the Bluemel case. Respondent siated that she was in regular
contact with Ms. Blueme! and that a judgment in the Bluemels’ favor should be entered soon.
Respondent agreed to provide the OBC with a copy of the judgment once it was entered.

13. On October 11, 2018, Ms. Bluemel emailed Respondent asking whether
‘Respondent had “heard anything fom the court or judge.” The subject line stated “RPM suit”

14. On October 15, 2018 and October 24, 2018, Ms. Howshar emailed Respondent
requesting updates and a copy ofthe judgment if entered. Respondent did not respond to either
inquiry.

15. On October 24, 2018, Respondent responded to Ms. Bluemel's October 11 email
1s follows:

Hello Marianne,

apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Last week was... well, I was out

‘of town forthe beginning of i, and then my college roommate lost her son on his

‘th birthday. And then I was out of town again earlier this week, because I just

can't seem to have court in Green River anymore.

1 was in Evanston in [sic] Monday on another matter and reminded the judge of

‘Your pending motion. He asked about your intention for garnishment and whether

‘their employment had changed?

In response, Ms. Bluemel provided Respondent with updated employment information for one of
the defendants.
16. On October 30, 2018, Ms. Howshar again requested an update via email. On
‘November 2, 2018, Respondent responded as follows:
Shannon,

1 apologize. The last few weeks have been ... well, Murphy's Law was in full
effect. Lots of funerals (the worst was my college roommate's son, who passed on
his 14th birthday), lots of emergencies, lots of travel, very little time inthe office.

This case isnot finished yet, but I remain hopeful that we are about done. I was a
lite overoptimistic before because of an unknown issue related to damages.
‘There was a data entry error in the spreadsheet I was provided about damages that
‘reated a $10,000 diserepancy between what we were asking for and what the
‘ectual damages tured out to be. It took a while to work out. Inthe meantime,
‘Marianne and I have been in contact and are making plans for collection when the
suit ends. She just sent me updated employment information for gamishments on
Monday.

17, In December 2018, Respoodeat told Ms. Bluemel thatthe judge signed the
‘samishment order but here was an eight-week backlog.

18. On January 10, 2019, Ms. Howshar emailed Respondent requesting a status
update Respondent did not respood.

19. On March 24, 2019, Bar Counsel emailed Respondent requesting a status update
‘since Respondent had not responded to Ms. Howshar’s request. On March 25, 2019, Respondent
responded ating:

Tm afraid 1 dida't see the email from Shannon. I apologize. It could be that I
accidentally deleted it when deleting a lot of other junk mail from my phone-I was
‘mediating in Cheyenne on January 10, and so wasnt using my usual Outlook on
‘desktop to go through correspondence,

‘The Boyles have filed for divorce and are selling off their assets. Since it appears
their companies were entirely plundered, Marianne [Bluemel] has asked me to
pierce the corporate veil and collect against them personally (specifically against
their house, which rumor bas it i going to be put onthe market in April or May).
1m following the guidance from the Red Desert Reclamation case (which I lost
and so remember well) to pierce the corporate veil so that they can collect. I can't
‘ait for this one to end. Piercing the corporate veil is no fun, especially against
Parties that choose to appear pro se. Marianne, however, hs been a fount of
information It helps that Jeanette Boyles is her niece.
20, In 2019, Respondent had one conversation with Ms. Bluemel.

21. On January 14, 2020, Bar Counsel requested a status update, stating, “The
Bluemel complaint is now two years old. We have heard nothing from you since March 2019.
Please provide an update as soon as possible.” Bar Counsel sent another email on January 17,
2020,

22, In January 2020, Ms, Bluemel again contacted Respondents office regarding the
gamishment and checks since she had not received any money from the court. Initially,
‘Respondent's staf could not locate the RPM file, On February 5, 2020, Respondent's office
‘informed Ms. Bluemel that it would contact the court regarding the gamishment checks.
Respondent later told Ms, Bluemel that her offce needed to send another garnishment to the
Court and tht it could take up to ninety (90) days to begin receiving checks.

23. On March 6, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel sent Respondent an email requesting: (1)
4 status update on the Bluemel matter; (2) whether Respondent refunded the Bluemels the foe
they paid to Mathey Law Office as she had promised in her February 13, 2018 letter tothe OBC;
@) whether Respondent continued to represent the Bluemels without charge; and (4) written
confirmation of Respondent's withdrawal from the RPM suit.

(On March 13, 2020, Respondent responded to Deputy Bar Counsel's inquiry as follows:

‘The Bluemels have been refunded and Mathey Law Office has retained no monies

from them. Maryanne and I have been speaking regularly as we both attempt to

find Jeanette. My firm isin the process of switching from Westlaw to Lexis and

‘our new plan includes PeopleFind, so we are hopeful tht it will be helpful.

‘This case is being transferred to [another attomey in Respondent's office].

24. On March 20, 2020, Respondent reiterated that the case has been transferred to
another atomey inher office.

25. On March 20, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel requested a copy of the Substitution of
Counsel. On March 23, 2020, Respondent provided the OBC with a Notice of Withdrawal and

6
‘the Entry of Appearance for [another attomey in Respondent's office], dated March 18, 2020 and
March 23, 2020. The Entry of Appearance did not have a Cerificate of Service. The Notice of
‘Withdrawal contained a Certificate of Service signed by Respondent stating that copies of the
"Notice were served on the opposing parties on March 18, 2020, Neither document contained a
<ivil action mumber, docket number or other identifying information. Neither document was file-
stamped by the clerk of court, The documents were falsification, fabricated by Respondent in
response to Deputy Bar Counsel's request

26. Contrary to what Respondent had been telling Ms, Bluemel for more than three
‘years, and contrary to numerous representations to OBC, the RPM suit was not filed until April
1, 2020. Everything Respondent had tld Ms, Bluemel and OBC about the status ofthe case was
a fabrication on Respondent's part.

27. Deputy Bar Counsel requested Respondent's entre ease file for the Bluemet
‘matter no later than May 1, 2020, On May 1, 2020 at 6:49 p.m., Respondent responded via
11m writing o let you know that I'm not ignoring the May 1 deadline and stil
hope to meet it. Ive been outa lot inthe last two weeks, especially asthe family
cancer scare transitioned into a "Good news, it's just a brain tumor’ situation. {
already know most ofthe doctors who are needed because of my own adventres
in otosclerosis and so I've been needed to assist with tha situation. I made e point
of getting back today in time to send you the file, only to find that the internet is
down. As soon as itis up, have an email prepared. Sadly, I cannot send it from

amy cell

28 On May 4, 2020, Respondent emailed the Bluemel file, including a Summons to
the RPM defendonts and a Motion for Summary Judgment in the RPM suit. Neither of these
documents was dated, signed, or file stamped, nor did they contain a ease number, The
documents were falsification, fabricated by Respondent in response to Deputy Bar Counsel's
request,
29. On May 4, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel asked for confirmation that the documents
attached to Respondent's May 4 email constituted the entire Bluemel case file. In response,
‘Respondent stated that she had file stamped versions of the Complaint and Summons, did not
hhave an atias Summons because she had not located the individual defendants, and that she could
‘ot find scanned versions ofthe affidavits signed by the Bluemels.

30. On May 7, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel reiterated the request for the entire file,
{including invoices, by May 11, 2020.

31. OnMay 7, 2020, Respondent informed the OBC that she intended to seek inactive
‘status, transfer ownership of Mathey Law Office to Respondent's parner, take a leave of absence
‘of at least 120 days, and may retum her license to practice law in Wyoming.

32. Deputy Bar Counsel reiterated the May 11 deadline,

33. On May 11, 2020, Respondent provided additional documents, including an
invoice forthe Bluemels, which indicated that zero hours had been spent on the ease and that the
client and matter had not been created in QuickBooks because an invoice had not been sent.
Respondent added a handwriten note stating: “Doesn't exist in (QuickBooks) because nothing
‘has been billed.” Respondent also provide file stamped copies ofthe Summons end Complaint
in the RPM case, which were file stamped April 1, 2020.

34. On May 14, 2020, Respondent changed her status with the Wyoming State Bar
from “active” to “inactive.”

35. With respect to the Bluemels’ complaint, there is clear and convincing evidence
‘that Respondent committed the following professional misconduct:

‘& Respondent violated Rule 1.3 (diligence) by delaying filing the Bluemels’
lawsuit, JAMA Enterprises v. RPM Elite for over four years.
'b. The same conduct also constitutes a violation of Rule 3.2, which provides,
“A lawyer shall make reasonsble efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
ofthe client.”

© Respondent violated Rule 1.4 (communication with client) by (1) failing
to respond timely, or at all, to the Bluemels’ inquiries about the RPM lawsuit and (2)
‘aking material misrepresentations to the Bluemels about the status of the RPM case,
‘including asserting thatthe RPM lawsuit had been filed and was progressing but delayed
{for reasons beyond Respondent's control

4. Respondent violated Rule 81 (duty to cooperate with disciplinary
investigation) by (1) failing to provide documents requested by the OBC and fuling to
respond fo requesis altogether, and (2) knowingly and repeatedly making matcial
risrepresenations tothe OBC.

© Respondent violated Rule 8.4¢) (dishonest conduct) by repeatedly lying
to the Bluemels about the status of ther case.

£ Respondent violated Rule 8.4(@) (conduct prejudicial tothe administration
of justice) by blaming judges, court staff and the court system for delays in the RPM
lawsuit when in fact the delay was eaused by Respondents failure to file the case.

 

36. Steven Johnson was a client whom Respondent represented in various matters. On.
April 21, 2620, Johnson filed @ complaint against Respondent with the OBC regarding
Respondent's representation of him in Best Value Rentals v, Tablet, Respondent also
‘represented Johnson on two other matters that became the subject of an investigation: (1) Noble

 

Investments v. City of Rock Springs, and (2) litigation against a company in Idaho (the “Idaho
litigation”),
37. Johnson hired Respondent to represent his company, Noble Investments, in a
lawsuit against the City of Rock Springs stemming from property damage caused by a sewer
backup in 2016, Respondent billed Johnson for conversations with the sttomey for the City of
[Rock Springs, Richard Beckwith, on June 7, 2017, November 15, 2018, and November 29, 2018,

38. Respondent also represented Johnson and another individual (hereinafter “Co-
Plaintiff) inthe Idaho litigation. The Idaho litigation was mediated in May 2018, resulting in a
$47,500.00 settlement, the proceeds of which were deposited into Respondent's trust account on
June 17, 2019.

39. Johnson and Co-Plaintiff made multiple inquiries asking when they would receive
‘their funds. Respondent told them she was not able to distribute the funds until Respondent
received a final invoice her co-counsel in Idaho (“Idaho co-counsel”)

40. On July 26, 2019, Johnson emailed Respondent asking if she could send her
invoice and Johnson's and Co-PlaintifY's settlement checks pending communication from
Pendlebury or verbally obtain the amount owed so that checks could be issued. Respondent did
‘not respond to this request,

41. On July 31, 2019, Johnson requested copies of all documents and filings in the
‘Noble Investments lawsuit against the City of Rock Springs so that he could transfer the case to
‘nother attorney.

42, In mid-August, Johnson contacted Idaho co-counsel's office and was informed
‘thatthe final invoice was paid by Respondent's office in June 2019,

43, On August 16, 2019, Johnson sent a certified letter (the “8-16-19 Letter") to
‘Respondent detailing his concerns about the failure to receive settlement proceeds and informing,
Respondent that no money was owed to Idaho co-counsel. Johnson also complained that his
‘messages and emails hed not been returned in the preceding three weeks, that he was not getting

10
read receipts from his emails, and be believed his texts had been blocked. In the same letter,
‘Johnson sought information about the lawsuit against the City of Rock Springs:

Finally, it has been a long time I received any update from you on the case we
filed against the City of Rock Springs for looding my shop with raw sewage beck
in 2016. T know when we spoke in March nothing had changed since the
‘complaint was sent to the judge to sign off on a Summary Judgement, which was
‘over 2 years ago if I recall corectly. I never received copies of any documents,
filings, pleadings, etc... on this case. Please prepare copies of all filings and
pleadings along with a summary of what has been done to date and current status
of the case and forward them to me.

44, Respondent responded on August 26, 2019 as follows:
Steve:

1 have received the letter you mailed me. Thanks for the mail; if you had
previously sent emails, I bad not received any since the one I sent you at the end
‘of July. We updated our security again after catching a hacking attempt, and even
‘though your email is marked as "safe" I am told it got caught up in the updated
security. The "FlashFunding” partis what gets flagged. I have asked numerous
times for that to be fixed, but apparently it correlates too closely to known
problem email addresses for an algorithm.

1am still asking ([daho co-counsel] for hs billing. I have received no responses.
If it is acceptable to you, I will hold back $1000 from the final payments to you
‘and Andy so that I can finalize everything else. Then, when Drew sends his bill,
‘can pey him and send out the remainder. Altematively, I can forward hs final
to you for direct payment.

 

   
 

In the same email, Respondent promised that she was “gathering the documents for the Rock
‘Springs lawsuit,” which would be mailed “early next week.” The documents were not mailed.

45, Johnson immediately responded, reiterating that he had spoken with two
individuals at Idaho co-counsel's office who confirmed that there are no outstanding invoices,
forwarded an email from the office which contsined detailed list of payments from
‘Respondent's office, and stated he was looking forward to receiving the settlement check.

46. Respondent's assistant responded to Johnson’s email by stating that she “took it
‘a far as I could go without having Danielle's time, she has to do that.” Respondent's hourly fees
{for the Idaho litigation were to be deducted from the settlement proceeds.

n
47. On September 12, 2019, Respondent sent Johnson an email stating that she had
received an Order for the Default Judgment for the Noble Investments property damage claim
‘against the City of Rock Springs (“Default Judgment”):

‘The good news is that, what with judicial retirements, orders are getting signed.

‘We finally got your judgment for Rock Springs yesterday. You get the $7,545.66

that we claimed, but it's a tort and a governmental entity, so only post-judgment

interest, I should get the check from Gladfelter’s by the end of the month. Im not
complaining. If they had actually opposed the complaint, you would have had

‘more legal fees plus they would have whittled down those damages,

‘The news is that checks are going out today. I had to wait because Barb was on

‘vacation and it tums out that no one else knew how to issue them, but she's back

now. If it is preferable to you, T can deduct the $7,545.66 from the judgment

‘against Rock Springs were expecting payment on and then finish everything up

with one check to you. That will place the risk of collecting on my office, but

since it's an insurance company I'm willing to assume the risk.

48. Respondent's statement that a Default Judgement had been obtained against the
City of Rock Springs, as well as her statement that the Idaho litigation settlement checks were
‘being mailed that day, were falsehoods.

49. On September 20, 2019, Co-Plaintiff sent Respondent an email threatening to
notify the OBC if the Idaho litigation settlement checks were not received by the following
week. A few hours later after receiving Co-Plaintiff's email, Respondent responded as follows:

‘When you called yesterday and said you feared (the settlement checks] had been

Jost, rather than delay further (because I know Green River mail can take up t0 2

‘weeks even locally), I figured we should cancel the checks and send new ones.

So, 10306 and 10307 have been cancelled and 10310 and 10311 have been issued.

‘To be triple sure they get to you, your tracking numbers are 7016 0910 0000 0433
and 7016 9010 0000 9630 0440.

‘Respondent's statements were falsehoods. Respondent didnot issue or seod checks to Johnson or
Co-Plaintff prior to receiving Co-Plaintif’s email threatening to contact the OBC. Check
#10306 was written tothe US. Treasury on July 29, 2019. Check #10307 was written on behalf
‘of another clint on September 13, 2019, There were no voided checks written to Johnson or
Co-Plaintift

2
50. On September 20, 2020, Respondent issued checks to Johnson and Co-Plaitif in
the amounts of $26,350.69 and $7,432.24, respectively. Respondent enclosed a final invoice for
her fees in the Idaho litigation in the amount of $13,717.07, which Respondent deducted from
the $47,500.00 gross settlement amount before distributing the balance, $33,

 

93, to Johnson
‘and Co-Plaintff. The invoice Respondent provided to Johnson was dated September 20, 2019
‘and contained eighteen (18) months of time entries. The invoice stated that the balance
‘emaining in the trust account aftr payment of the $13,717.07 invoice for Respondent's fees was
$33,782.93.

Sl. On September 24, 2020, Johnson sent Respondent an email questioning the
‘amount withheld from the settlement for Respondent's fees based upon his understanding that
Respondent's total fees for the case were approximately $14,000.00 but he had already paid
‘$7,000.00. He also requested a copy ofthe Default Judgment agains the City of Rock Springs.

52. On September 30, 2020, Respondent responded to Johnson's email: “My
recollection of our conversation in Utah was that I told you that the bill was around $14,000
‘utstanding—that the inital [$7,000] deposit was gone, and thatthe remainder was going to be
‘around $14,000." Regarding the Default Judgment agains the City of Rock Springs, Respondent
wrote:

‘The check for the other case arrived and cleared, I believe it has been mailed but

will have to confirm that with Barb. It's hard to miss checks for thousands of

dollars when they're presented to me for signature, so I know it has been signed.

AAs suspected, the insurance company paid promptly. Given their silence and the

existence ofa default, suspect they never told Rock Springs that suit was fled.

‘Better to quietly pay and make it go away after that kind of error.

Respondent attached tothe email a fabricated Default Judgment against the City of Rock
Springs. The fabricated Default Judgment indicated that the case had been filed in the District
‘Court for the Third Judicial District. The case number was partially obscured and unreadable,
‘The document appeared to have been file-stamped September 9, 2019 and signed by Judge

1B
James. When Respondent fabricated the Default Judgment, she photocopied Judge James"
signature and the Distict Court file stamp from a different case and taped them tothe fabricated
Default Judgment. In truth, no action was filed against the City of Rock Springs.

53. On September 30, 2019, Respondent wrote Johnson a check for $7,545.66 ~ the
‘amount of the fabricated Default Judgment against the City of Rock Springs ~ from
Respondent's trust account. Though Respondent represented to Johnson that these were funds
received from the City of Rock Springs’ insurance company, in truth, these funds were part of
the $47,500.00 settlement received inthe Idaho litigation. Respondeat paid herself only a portion
($6,171.41) of the amount Respondent told Johnson she deducted from the Idaho

 

gation
‘setlement ($13,717.07) in order to leave sufficient funds inthe trast account (57,545.66) to pay
the fabricated Defsult Judgment.

54. In December 2018, Johnson asked Respondent to file a Forcible Entry and
Detainer action against Nick and Stephanie Tabler, former tenants of Johnson's. Mr. Taber was
‘ot served. Ms. Tabler was served but didnot appear, so judgment was entered against he.

55. In January 2019, Johnson asked Respondent to commence a civil suit against Mr.
Table in Circuit Court. Respondent agreed to begin working onthe case immediately,

56. Respondent Jed Johnson to belive that she had commenced a civil suit against
‘Mr. Tabler. When Johnson expressed frustration with the lack of progress on the casein January
2020, Respondent told him the delay was due to “chaos” at the Circuit Court, in truth,
Respondent never fled an action against Mr. Table, in Circuit Court or anywhere else.

57. When Deputy Bar Counsel provided Respondent with a copy of Johnson's
Complaint against her in April 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel requested that Respondent respond in
‘writing by My 1, 2020. Respondent dd not respond.

4
58. On May 7, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel requested Respondent's trust account
records from January 1, 2019 to the present. On May 11, 2020, Respondent produced a
document entitled “Trust Printout,” stating, “I don't know whether the trust account information
‘is what you want; i's the report that prints when the dates you mentioned are input." The Trust
Printout was generated by MyLeanLaw and identifies clients and account balances.

59. On May 11, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel reiterated that the trust account records
‘sought “are the records kept pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(g)" and
needed to be received by May 14, 2020. In response, Respondent again provided documents
‘detailing transactions and balances for individual clients but did not provide bank statements.

60. On May 14, 2020, Respondent changed her status with the Wyoming State Bar
from “active” to “inactive.”

61. On June 30, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel instructed Respondent to “provide
‘monthly statements from June 2019-October 2019 for the Mathey Law Office Wyoming State
Bar Foundation JOLTA Account at the Bank of the West” by July 8, 2020. Respondent did not
respond to this request, nor did Respondent ever provide the trust account records requested by
Deputy Bar Counsel.

62. On July 16, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel issued a Subpoena to the Bank of the West
‘requesting account statements for Mathey Law Office's operating and trust account from April 1,
2019 -November 30, 2019.

63. On July 27, 2020, Respondent voluntarily withdrew her membership in the
‘Wyoming State Bar. At the time Respondent withdrew her membership, she knew that the
‘bank's production of Respondent's trust account statements was going to expose fraudulent
‘activities on Respondent's part regarding her trust account,

1s
64. With respect to the Johnson complain, there is clear and convincing evidence that
Respondent committed the following professional misconduct:

a Respondent violated Rule 1.3 (diligence) by failing to file Johnson's
lawsuit against Nick Tabler (Best Value Rentals v. Taber) despite multiple requests from
Johnson beginning in January 2019 and failing to file Johnson's lawsuit, Noble
Investments v. City of Rock Springs, despite beginning to work on the case as early as
June 7, 2017.

b. The same conduct also constitutes a violation of Rule 3.2, which provides,
“A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of the client”

©. Respondent violated Rule 1.4 (communication with client) by (1) failing
to respond and/or failing to respond honestly to Johnson's requests for information
Pertaining to the Tabler lawsuit and Noble Investments lawsuit against the City of Rock
Springs; (2) affirmatively misleading Johnson into believing that the Tabler lawsuit was
filed and lying to him about the status of the lawsuit; (3) affirmatively misleading
Johnson into believing that Respondent had filed the Noble Investments lawsuit and
obtained Default Judgment against the City of Rock Springs; (4) failing to provide
documents allegedly filed in the Tabler and Noble Investments lawsuits to Johnson
<espite repeated requests; and (5) lying to Johnson and Co-Plaintiff about the status of
their settlement funds by stating the settlement checks had been mailed when the check
hhad not yet been issued.

4. Respondent violated Rule 8.1 (duty to cooperate with disciplinary
investigation) by (1) failing to provide documents requested by the OBC end fling to

16
respond to requests altogether, and (2) knowingly and repeatedly making material
‘misrepresentations to the OBC.
Respondent violated Rule 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act) by

 

fabricating a Default Judgment in the Noble Investments case and by pasting Judge
ignature and District Cour file stamp onto the fabricated Default Judgment,

£ Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) (dishonest conduct) by repeatedly lying
to Johnson about the status of his cases, by informing Johnson and Co-Plaintiff that

James’

 

settlement checks had been issued when they had not, and by fabricating « Default
Judgment.

& Respondent violated Rule 8.4() (conduct prejudicial to the administration
of justice) by blaming judges, court staff and the court system for delays in the Tabler
‘and Noble Investments lawsuits when in fact the delay was caused by Respondent's
failure to file the cases, Respondent further violated Rule &.4(d) by falsifying a Default
Judgment and pasting Judge James’ signature and District Court file stamp onto the fake
Default Judgment,

65. In committing the foregoing misconduct, Respondent violated duties owed to her

clients (ABA Standard 4.4) and to the public (ABA Standard 5.1). Under Standard 5.1,
<disbarment isthe presumptive sanction for Respondent’s misconduct, as Respondent engaged, on
several levels, in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation that
seriously adversely reflects on Respondent’ fitness to practice.

66. Respondent's neglect of her clients and her overtly dishonest acts caused actual

‘harm to her clients.

67. The following aggravating factors are present: (1) dishonest motive; (2) a patter

‘of misconduct; (3) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding; (4) submission of false

”
evidence, false statements and other deceptive practices ducing the disciplinary process; (5)
‘efusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; and (6) substantial experience in te practice
oflaw.

‘68. The following mitigating factor is present: absence ofa prio disciplinary record,

69. In consideration of the foregoing factors and misconduct by Respondent, the
appropriate sanction is disbarment,

70. Af the Court adopts the Review Pane!'s recommendation and issues an Order of|
Public Censure in accordance herewith, the parties have agreed tothe following press release:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order of disbarment to Green
River attomey Danielle M. Mathey. The disbarment stemmed from Mathey's
‘conduct in representing several clients in matters in which Mathey lied to clients
‘about the status of their cases, fabricated court documents and mishandled trust
‘account funds belonging to the client as well as failing to respond to inquiries by
the Wyoming State Bar's Office of Bar Counsel regarding her conduct. Mathey
‘admitted that her conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct regarding,
diligence, candor in communications with clients, safeguarding of client funds
‘held in trust, commission of criminal acts, dishonest conduct, conduct prejudicial
{to the administration of justice and failure to cooperate with disciplinary
investigations. In approving the stipulation of Mathey and Bar Counsel for
disbarment as the appropriate sanction for Mathey's conduct, the Court ordered
Mathey to pay administrative fees in the amount of $1,500.00 and costs of
{$100.00 to the Wyoming State Bar,

‘Conclusions of aw
71. ‘The Bar retains jurisdiction over Mathey’s pending disciplinary matters:

Sestlon 4, Withdrawal from membership.

‘Any person having been admitted to the Wyoming State Bar who desires to
withdraw therefrom shall submit a request to the Wyoming State Bar. The
request shall be reviewed by the executive director, who shall then make a
recommendation for action on the request to the Wyoming Supreme Court
‘The Wyoming Supreme Court may then enter such order as it deems
appropriate. According to the terms of the order allowing withdrawal by the
Wyoming Supreme Court, the person shall cease to be a member of the
Wyoming State Bar and shall no longer be authorized to practice law in
‘Wyoming. A members withdrawal shell not stay or otherwise affect 2
pending disciplinary investigation or proceeding regarding that member. A
‘member who withdraws may thereafir seek admission to the Wyoming State

 

18
‘Bar as provided in the Wyoming Rules and Procedures Governing Admission
to the Practice of Law.

WY RBAR BYLAWS art. I.

72. Rule 1.3, W.R-Prof.Cond,, provides, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
‘and promptness in representing a client.

73. Rule 1.4, W.RProf.Cond,, provides in pertinent part:

A lawyer shall:

Q) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with
respect fo which the client's informed consent, as defined in 1.0(0, is required by
these Rules;

@) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the
clients objectives are tobe accomplished;

(G) Keep the client reasonably informed about the status ofthe matter;

(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(S) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the Inwyer's
Conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitied by
the Rules of Professional Conductor other law.

74, Rule 3.2, W.RProfCond., provides, “A lewyer shall make reasonable efforts to
‘expedite litigation consistent with the interests ofthe client.”

75. Rule 8.1, W.R-Prof.Cond,, provides, “An applicant for admission to the bar, or a
lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary
matter, shall not: (8) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or (b) fail to disclose a
{uct necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the mater, or
‘knowingly fil to respond toa lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary
authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by
Rule 1.6"

76. Rule 84, W.RProfCond., provides in pertinent part:

Itis professional misconduct fora lawyer to:

(&) commit a criminal act that reflects sdversely on the lawyer's honesty,
‘trustworthiness or fitness asa lewyer in other respec;

(© engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

19
(@) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice ***
77. — Rulle 15(6)(3(D), W.RDisc., provides, “In imposing « sanction after a finding
‘of misconduct by the respondent, the BPR shall consider the following factors, as enumerated in
the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions:
1. Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a clint, othe publi, to
the legal system, or to the profession;
2. Whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;
3. The amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct and
4. The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
78, Standard 4.4, “Lack of Diligence,” of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer

 

Sanctions sets forth the following guidelines:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set
‘out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving
failure to act wit reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client:

441 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(@) lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially serious injury
to acleat; or

(b) 2 lawyer knowingly fils to perform services for a client and cause serious or
potentially serious injury toa client; or

(©) a lawyer engages in a pattem of neglect with respect to client matters and
causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client,

442 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

(@) lawyer knowingly falls to perform services for a client and causes injury or
potential injury to a client, or

(®) a lawyer engages in a pattem of neglect with respect to client matters and
‘causes injury or potential injury toa client.

443 Reprimand (ie, “public censure” under Rule 9(8)(3) of the Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act
with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential
injury toa client.

444° Admonition (i.e, “private reprimand” under Rule 9(aX4) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and
does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes litle or
‘no actual or potential injury toa client.

79, ABA Standard 5.1, “Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity,” provides:

‘Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set
‘out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a

20

  
criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as

‘8 lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or

risrepresentation:

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate wen:

lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of

includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false

‘swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or
the sale, distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional
killing of another; or an attempt ot conspiracy or solicitation of another to
commit any ofthese offenses or

® lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice,

5.12 ‘Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal
‘conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that
seriously adversely reflects on the laver's ines o practice.

5.13 Reprimand [i.e. “public censure” under Rule 9(a)3), W.R Dise-P) is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any otbe conduct that invalves
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the
Inwyer’s fitness to practice law,

S14 Admonition [.e, “private reprimand” under Rule 9(@\4), WRDiseP) is
{generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other conduct that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

80. The Preface to the ABA Standards includes the following discussion regarding

   

 

mental state:

‘The mental states used inthis model are defined as follows. ‘The most culpable
‘mental sat is that of intent, when the lawyer acts with the conscious objective or
‘Purpose to accomplish a particular result. The next most culpable meatal sate is
tbat of knowledge, when the lawyer acis with conscious awareness of the nature
or atendant circumstances of his or her conduct both without the conscious
objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. The last culpable mental
state is negligence, when a lawyer fails to be aware of a substantial risk tht
Gircumstances exist or that a result will follow, which flue is a deviation of a
‘care that a reasonable lawyer would exerise in the situation,

81, Under the ABA Standards, “injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the public, the
[egal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer’s misconduct. The level of injury can
‘ange from ‘serious’ injury to ‘litle or no’ injury; a reference to “injury” alone indicates aay level
Of injury greater than ‘little oF no” injury.” “Potential injury” is defined as “harm to a cient, the

a
Public, the legal system or the profession that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the
lawyer's misconduct, and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably have
‘resulted from the lawyer's misconduct.”

2.
9
92
921
922

93
931

932

ABA Standard 9.0, entitled “Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as follows:

Generally

‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances

‘may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.

Aggravation

Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations or

{actors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors include:

(@) prior disciplinary offenses;

(b) dishonest or selfish motive;

(© apattem of misconduct;

(@) multiple offenses;

(©) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to
‘comply with rules or orders ofthe disciplinary agency;

(O submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices
during the disciplinary process;

(2) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(h) vulnerability of the vets

) substantial experience in the practice of law;

@) indifference in making restitution; and

(illegal conduct, inciuding that involving the use of controlled substances.

‘Mitigation.

Defnition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or

factors that may justify a reduction inthe degre of discipline to be imposed.

Factors which may be considered in mitigation, Mitigating factors include:

(@) absence ofa prio disciplinary record;

(b) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive,

(©) personal or emotional problems;

@) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to retify consequences of
misconduct;

(© fall end fice disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward

proceedings
(f inexperience in the practice of law;
(g) character or reputation;
‘(h) physical disability;
(©) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical
dependency or mental disability;
(2) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the misconduct;

 

 

2
94

(@) the respondent’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental
disability is demonstrated by 2 meaningful and sustained petiod of
successful rehabilitation; and

(G4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence ofthat misconduct is
unlike

) delay in disciplinary proceedings;

(imposition of other penalties or sanctions,

() remorse; and

(ix) remoteness of prior offenses.

Factors Which Are Neither Agaravating nor Mitigating.

‘The following factors should not be considered as either aggravating nor

cen

(@) forced of compelled restitution;

(©) agreeing tothe client's demand for certain improper behavior or result;

(©) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer,

‘@) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;

(@) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and

© failure if injured client to complain.

 

Recommendation

In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Review

2

be issued.

3.

 

Panel recommends as follows:

‘That Respondent be disbarred for violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1, and 8.4(b),

(©and @, WRProfCond.

‘That, upon issuance of the order of disbarment, the foregoing press release may

‘That Respondent be required to pay an administrative fee of $1,500.00 and costs

‘of $100.00 to the Wyoming State Bar within 10 days of such order.
Dated

A day of February, 2021.

     
 

T. We
Review Panel of the Board of Professional
Responsibility

‘Wyoming State Bar