Case Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Michael J. Pearce, WSB # 7-4838

Citation: 2019 WY 85

Docket Number: D-19-0008

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2019 WY 85
April Term, A.D. 2019
August 14,2019

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING

STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

7 D-19-0008

MICHAEL J. PEARCE, WSB #
7-4838,

Respondent.

ORDER OF ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION

[£1] This matter came before the Court upon the Board of Professional Respon
“Report and Recommendation for One-Year Suspension,” filed herein July 30, 2019,
pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (stipulated
discipline). After a careful review of the Report and Recommendation and the file, the
Court finds the Report and Recommendation should be approved. confirmed and adopted
by the Court, and that Michael J. Pearce should be suspended from the practice of law for
one year. Its, therefore,

 

 

[£2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
‘Report and Recommendation for One-Year Suspension,” which is attached hereto and
corporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by

this Court: and it is further

     

[$3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduct set forth in the
Report and Recommendation for One-Year Suspension, Respondent Michael J. Pearce
shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the period of
suspension to begin August 22, 2019; and it is further

 
 

[£4] ORDERED that, during the period of suspension, 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 attomeys: and its further

 

[f5] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Respondent shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $100.
‘which represents the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay an administi
fee of $1,500.00. Respondent shall pay the total amount of $1,600.00 to the Wyoming
State Bar on or before January 1, 2020. If Respondent fails to make payment in the time
alloted, execution may issue on the award; and itis further

 

 

 

[$6] ORDERED that the Wyoming State Bar is authorized to issue the stipulated press
release contained in the “Report and Recommendation for One-Year Suspension”; and it
is further

[67] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this “Order of One-Year
Suspension,” along with the incorporated “Report and Recommendation for One-Year
4s @ matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it

  

   

[$8] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this “Order of One-Year Suspension,” along withthe incorporated “Report and
Recommendation for One-Year Suspension” shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter
and the Pacific Reporter, and its further

 

[£9] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this “Order of One-Year
Suspension” to be served upon Respondent Michael J. Pearce.

[f 10) DATED this 14® day of August, 2019,
BY THE COURT:

bs

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
0-19-0008

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT See EERE
#

 

STATE OF WYOMING WL3
In the matter of )
MICHAEL J. PEARCE, )
WSB 47-4838, ) WSB No. 2018-078 &
) WSB No. 2019-039
Respondent. )

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION

 

THIS MATTER came before the Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board” or
“BPR) on the 22 day of July, 2019, for consideration of the parties’ stipulation for a
‘one-year suspension submitted pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Dis-
ciplinary Procedure, and the Board having reviewed the Stipulation, the accompanying,
‘Affidavit of conditional admission (“A.Tidavi

 

‘and being fully advised in the premises,
FINDS, CONCLUDES and RECOMMENDS as follows.
Findings of F

1, Respondent has been licensed to practice law in Wyoming since 2012 and

 

maintains a solo practice in Laramie, Wyoming. Respondent is the subject of two disci-
plinary complaints, one from a client and one in the form of a report submitted by the
residing judge in a different matter.

2. Inthe underlying matter involved in No, 2018-073, Respondent's failure to
‘exercise competence and diligence in representing a client in a personal injury matter re-
sulted in the client’s case being dismissed with prejudice. Respondent admits that he vio-
lated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 14 (communication with client), and 8.4(c)
(misleading statements) in representing the client.

3, In the underlying matter involved in No. 2019-039, Respondent was issued
‘2 written reprimand by the presiding district court judge for violation of numerous provi-
sions of a scheduling order and for numerous violations of Rule 801 (standards of profes-
sional behavior) of the Uniform Rules for District Courts of the State of Wyoming. Re-
spondent admits that he violated Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 3.4(c) (failure
to follow the rules of the tribunal) and &.4(c) (misleading statements) in the conduct for
which the presiding judge reprimanded him.

4. In WSB No, 2018-073, Respondent represented the plaintiff in a personal
injury matter against parties allegedly responsible for a motor vehicle accident.

5. Defense counsel moved to dismiss the case without prejudice after learning
that most of the plaintiff's medical expenses arising from the motor vehicle accident were
Paid by workers’ compensation. Defense counsel's motion was based upon Respondent's
failure to provide notice of the lawsuit to the Workers’ Compensation Division Director
and to the Attorney General as required by W.S. § 27-14-105(b).

6. Respondent did not contest the motion and on September 28, 2017, an order

 

ing the case without prejudice was entered. The order expressly provided, “Plain-
‘iff shall have one year to re-file the action, pursuant to W.S. § 1-3-118."

7. The complaint Respondent's client submitted to the Office of Bar Counsel
in late June 2018 stated, “Hired Mike Pearce a couple years ago to handle my personal

 

injury case. I can’t get him to answer the phone, return calls, letters or emails for over a
year. I'd like him to either get to work or withdraw and return my file, preferably with-
draw. He's a poor excuse for an attorney.”

8. Respondent filed a reply to the client’s complaint with the Office of Bar
Counsel in which he stated:

am responding to the allegations put forth to you against me by [Respond-
cent’s client). Ihave attempted to reach him several times. The last we
spoke, I provided him with an update on his case, and there have been no
‘more updates. Iam sorry that he feels I have not been responsive, though I
hhave given him all necessary and timely information. I have sent messages
to [email address}. I am happy to reach out to him ASAP again to move
forward in whatever way he wishes.

Respondent did not disclose in his initial response that the lawsuit had been dismissed in
September 2017.

9. Upon receipt of a copy of Respondent's reply to the complaint, Respond-
ent’s client wrote to Bar Counsel and insisted that he had received no updates on the case
after its initial filing in February 2017 and had “no idea of where this case stands, what
deadlines may or may not have been met, etc.”

10. Following receipt of the client's response, Bar Counsel prevailed upon Re-
spondent to contact his client and get the case back on track.

IL. On July 18, 2018, Respondent sent the following email to his client:

My apologies we have missed each other. However, I understand you

would like your file back, and though I am happy to send it to you, sorry it
‘came to this.

explained to you or your wife several months ago that due to procedural
conditions 1 was not aware of at the time of filing, we had to dismiss the
claim but have one year to refile. That runs in September, My suggestion
would be for me to refile and allow you to substitute another attorney if you
‘would like, That would ensure that time is honored and not rush another at-
tomey. Of course, I would be happy to see it through at that point, too, but
will leave that up to you.

Please advise your intention on how you would like to handle the matter.

12, Upon receipt of Respondent’s email, the client forwarded it to Bar Counsel,
insisting that he was unaware thet the case had been dismissed.

13, At this juncture, Bar Counsel contacted the court and obtained a copy of
relevant pleadings ~ the complaint, the motion to dismiss and the order of dismissal. Up-
on review of those documents, Bar Counsel learned thatthe reason for the dismissal was
Respondent's failure to notify the Director of the Workers’ Compensation Division and
the Attomey General's office ofthe lawsuit as required by W.S. § 27-14-105(b).

14. On October 17, 2018, Respondent sent his client an email indicating that
the case had been refiled. On October 18, 2018, Respondent refiled the same complaint
{5 the one Respondent had filed in early 2017. The new case was assigned a new civil
action number. Unfortunately, the refiling was accomplished after the September 28,
2018, refiling deadline.

1S. On October 31, 2018, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the
first lawsuit with prejudice, The motion had been filed October 4, 2018. Respondent did
‘ot inform his client of defendants’ motion to dismiss the frst case with prejudice, nor of
the order of dismissal with prejudice.

16. Service of the complaint in the new case was not obtained upon the defend-
fant until March 29, 2019, On Apri

 

11, 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss
 

the new action with prejudice, Respondent did not inform his client of the defendant's
motion to dismiss the new case with prejudice.

17. On April 25, 2019, the client sent Respondent the following email:

Mike:

T’ve been trying to reach you regarding the lawsuit, the court tells me {the

defendant] filed a motion to dismiss. Have you or are you doing anything

about that? Let me know please, I think by now you know I'm not going to

let it go. I realize you have some personal problems but I have problems as

well which is why I hired you in the first place. This accident changed my

life Mike and not in a good way, I've got 5 kids I'm raising and am doing it

with permanent back and nerve damage, Please get your act together and

take care ofthis!

18, Respondent responded, “The response is due Tuesday and I am working on
itnow.” Respondent filed the response to the defendant's motion to dismiss on May 1,
2019. At this time, the motion is pending and has not been set for hearing.

19. In WSB No. 2019-039, Respondent represented the plaintiff in an action in
district court. On March 18, 2019, the presiding judge issued a reprimand to Respondent
based upon Respondent's failure to comply with filing deadlines in the case and his fail-
lure to make proper service of pleadings if filed upon defense counsel. ‘The presiding,
Judge sent a copy of the reprimand to Bar Counsel, who initiated an investigation and
subsequently filed a formal charge.

20. ‘The Board finds, with respect to the two matters encompassed by the Stipu-
lation and Affidavit, that there is clear and convincing evidence of Respondent's to viola-

tions of Rule 1.1 (competence) Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4 (communication with eli-
ent), Rule 3.4(c) (failure to follow the rules of the tribunal) and Rule 8.4(¢) (misleading
statements) as set forth above,

21. Regarding Respondent's violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4, Respondent
‘concedes, and the Board so finds, that there is clear and convincing evidence of a pattem
‘of neglect with respect to client matters in both of the complaints that have been made
‘against him, Respondent further concedes, and the Board so finds, that under ABA
Standard 4.4, a suspension isthe presumptive sanction for such violations.

22, Regarding Respondent's violations of Rule 3.4(c), Respondent concedes,
and the Board so finds, that under ABA Standard 6.2, a public censure isthe appropriate
sanction.

23, Regarding Respondent's violations of Rule 8.4(c), Respondent concedes,
and the Board so finds, that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for such violations.

24. Respondent concedes, and the Board so finds, that given the pattern of mis-
conduct to which he has conditionally admitted, Respondent's mental state cannot be ex-
cused as mere negligence.

25. Respondent concedes that in No. 2018-073, his client was harmed as a re~
sult of Respondent's failure to provide competent, diligent representation as set forth
above. In both matters, Respondent's conduct resulted in delays and corresponding costs
forthe court and the defendants.

26. The parties agree, and the Board so finds, that aggravating factors include:
(1) @ patter of misconduct; (2) multiple offenses; (3) failure to timely respond to Bar

  

Counsel's inquiries; and (4) a history of prior disci

 

. With respect to WSB No. 2018+
073, Respondent's dishonesty with his client is an additional aggravating factor. The sole

mitigating factor is ce

 

in personal or emotional problems experienced by Respondent.

27. Respondent concedes, and the Board so finds, that in consideration of the
foregoing factors, a suspension is the appropriate sanction for the conduct to which Re-
spondent has conditionally admitted. Respondent agrees, and the Board so finds, that a
‘one-year suspension is an appropriate sanction for Respondent's misconduct.

28. Respondent has a disciplinary history consisting of a private reprimand he
received in 2018 for violations of Rules 1.3 (diligence), 3.4(a) (lack of candor to the
court) and 3.4(c) (failure to follow the rules of the tribunal)

29, The parties have agreed that if the Board approves the Stipulation and the
Court issues an order of one-year suspension, the following press release may be issued:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order suspending Laramie
attomey Michael J, Pearce from the practice of law for one year. The
‘order of suspension stemmed from Pearce failing to comply with Wyo-
‘ming statutes in the filing of a personal injury action, having misled his
client as to the status of the personal injury action and having missed
court deadlines in two separate matters and otherwise having failed to
comply with court rules and orders in both matters. Pearce agreed to the
suspension, which was recommended to the Supreme Court by the
Board of Professional Responsibility of the Wyoming State Bar. Pearce
was ordered to pay an administrative fee in the amount of $1,500.00

($750.00 each for two separate disciplinary complaints) and costs of
‘$100.00 to the Wyoming State Bar.

‘Conclusions of Law
30. Rule 1.1, W.R-Prof.Cond., provides, “A lawyer shall provide competent
Tepresentation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill,
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”
31. Rule 1.3, W.R-Prof.Cond,, provides, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and prompiness in representing a client.”

32, Rule 1.4, W.R-ProfCond., requires a lawyer to keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter.

33. Rule 3.4(c), W.R.Prof.Cond,, provides, “A lawyer shall not *** knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules ofa tribunal except for an open refusal based on an,

assertion that no

 

obligation exists.”
34. Rule 8.4(c), W.R-Prof.Cond., provides, “It is professional misconduct for a

 

lawyer to *** engage in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresenta-

tion.”

35. Rule 15(6(3X(D), W.R.Disc.P., provides, “In imposing a 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:

() Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the legal
system, orto the profess

(ii) Whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;

ii) ‘The amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's mis-
conduct; and

(iv) The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.”

 

36. Respondent's violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 call into play Standard

4.4, “Lack of Diligence,” of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. Stand-

 

ard 4.4 sets forth the following guideli

441 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
(@) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially
serious injury toa client; or
(®) @ lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and
‘cause serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or

(©) a lawyer engages in a patter of neglect with respect to client
matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a cli-
ent.

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

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

() a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client
matters and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

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

444 Admonition [ie., “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a)(4) of the
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure) is generally appropriate when a
lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in rep-
resenting a client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to
client.

 

 

 

 

 

37.

Respondent's violations of Rule 3.4(c) fall within the heading, “Violation

of Duties Owed to the Legal System.” ABA Standard 6.2, “Abuse of the Legal Pro-

cess,” provides:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the
factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appro-
priate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious
<laim, or failure to obey any obligation under the rules ofthe tribunal ex
cept for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation ex-
ists:

6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly vio-
lates a court order or a rule with the intent to obtain a benefit forthe
lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to
« party or causes serious or potentially serious interference with a le-
zal proceeding.

6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or
she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential
injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential inter-
ference witha legal proceeding,

6.23 Reprimand [i.e. “public censure” under Rule 9(a)(3) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer neg

 
ligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury
‘or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or
ial interference with a legal proceeding.

ie. “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a)(4) of the
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when
lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in complying
with a court order or rule, and causes litle or no actual or potential
injury to a party, or causes litte or no actual or potential interference
with a legal proceeding.

 

    

38. Respondent's violation of Rule 8.4(c) implicates Standard 5.1, “Failure to

Maintain Personal Integrity”:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the
factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appro-
priate in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adverse-
ly on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects, or in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
rmisrepresentation:

5.11” Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(2) lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, « necessary el-
cement of which includes intentional interference with the ad-
‘ministration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation,
fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or the sale distri
bution or importation of controlled substances; or the int
tional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solici-
tation of any other commit any of these offenses; or

(b)a 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 en-
gages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed
in Standard 5.11 and that seriously reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
practice.

5.13 Reprimand [i.e., “public censure” under Rule 9(a)(3) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law.

5.14 Admonition [ie “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a)(4) of the
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a

  

  

10
lawyer engages in any other conduct that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's fitness to practice law.

39. The Preface to the ABA Standards includes the following discussion re-
garding mental state:

‘The mental states used in this model are defined as follows. The most cul-
pable mental state is that of intent, when the lawyer acts with the conscious
objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. The next most cul-
pable mental state is that of knowledge, when the lawyer acts with con-
scious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of his or her con-
duct both without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a par-

lar result. The least culpable mental state is negligence, when a lawyer
ls to be aware of a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result
will follow, which failure is « deviation of a care that a reasonable lawyer
‘would exercise in the situation.

  

40. Under the ABA Standards, “injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the pub-
lic, the legal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct. The

level of injury can range from ‘serious’ injury to ‘little or no’ injury; a reference to ‘inju-

 

ry’ alone indicates any level of injury greater than “little or no’ injury.” “Potential injury”

is defined as “harm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession that is rea-
‘Ssonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but for some in-
tervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct.”

41. ABA Standard 9.0, entitled “Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as fol-

9.1 Generally
After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.
9.2 Aggravation
9.21 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the de-
‘gree of discipline to be imposed.

n
9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating

factors include:

(a) prior disciplinary offenses;

(b) dishonest or selfish motive;

(©) a pattem of misconduct;

(@ multiple offenses;

(©) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by inten-
tionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the discipli-
nary agency;

(® submission of false evidence, false statements, or other decep-
tive practices during the disciplinary process;

() refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(b) vulnerability ofthe vietim;

substantial experience in the practice of law;

indifference in making restitution; and

(6) illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled
substances.

93 Mitigation.

9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any con-
siderations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of
discipline to be imposed.

9.32 Factors which may be considered in mitigation. Mitigating fac-
tors include:

(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish mo
(©) personal or emotional problems;
(@) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify con-
‘sequences of misconduct;
© full and free disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward proceedings;
(0 inexperience in the practice of law;
(g) character or reputation;
(h) physical disabil
(i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcohol-
ism or drug abuse when:
(Q) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected
by a chemical dependency or mental disability
@) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the
misconduct;
G) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency
or mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and
sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

2
(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of
that misconduct is unlikely.
@) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions,
() remorse; and
(m) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 _ Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
The following factors should not be considered as ether aggravating
‘nor mitigating:
(@) forced or compelled restitution;
(b) agreeing to the client’s demand for certain improper behavior or re-
sult;
(©) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;
(@) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceeding
(©) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
(® failure of injured client to complain.

Recommendation
In consideration of the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the parties”

  

 

 

Stipulation, and the facts and admissions in the accompanying Affidavit, the Board rec-
‘ommends the Wyoming Supreme Court issue an order:

1, Suspending Respondent fora period of one year.

2. Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fee of $1,500.00 and costs
(0f $100.00 to the Wyoming State Bar on or before January 1, 2020.

3, Directing the Wyoming State Bar to issue the parties’ stipulated press re-
lease asset forth above.

$
DATED this_2./ day of uly, 2019.

 

Christopher H. Hawks, Vice Chi
Board of Professional Responsibility
‘Wyoming State Bar

B