Case Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Nick Edward Beduhn, WSB # 6-3763

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2021-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2021 WY 13
October Term, A.D. 2020

January 27,2021

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL,
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,

Petitioner,
1-16-0007
v. 1-17-0007

NICK EDWARD BEDUHN, WSB #
63763,

Respondent.
ORDER REINSTATING ATTORNEY TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

[91] This matter came before the Court upon the “Stipulation for Reinstatement
Pursuant to Rule 26(6)(6)(B),” filed herein January 5, 2021, by a hearing panel ofthe Board
of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. By order entered August 24,
2017, this Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law for two years, with the
period of suspension to begin May 10, 2017, the date this Court entered an “Order of
Immediate Suspension.” Bd. of Prof! Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Beduhn, 2017
WY 97, 402 P.3d 950 (Wyo. 2017). Later, this Court suspended Respondent for an
‘additional six months, with that suspension to run consecutively to the two-year
suspension. Bd. of Prof! Responsibility, Wvoming State Bar v. Beduhn, 2017 WY 139,
406 P.3d 1220 (Wyo. 2017). Respondent subsequently sought reinstatement. Now, after
4 careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility's “Stipulation for
Reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 26(b\(6)(B),” and the file, this Court finds that the
Stipulation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court; and that the
Respondent, Nick Edward Beduhn, should be reinstated to the practice of law. It is,
therefore,

 

 

 

[12] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Stipulation for Reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(6)(B)," which is attached hereto and.

 
incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed and adopted by
this Court; and i is further

 

({13] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Respondent, Nick Edward Beduhn, be,
and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in Wyoming, effective immediately; and it
is further

 

4.4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(6) Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
this Order Reinstating Attomey to the Practice of Law, along with the incorporated
“Stipulation for Reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(6)(B),” shall be published in the
‘Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and itis further

[15] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order Reinstating Attorney
to the Practice of Law, along with the incorporated “Stipulation for Reinstatement Pursuant
to Rule 26(b)(6)(B),” as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a publie record; and
it is further

[$6] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit a copy of this “Order Reinstating
Atomey to the Practice of Law” to the members of the Board of Professional
Responsibility and to the clerks of the appropriate courts of the State of Wyoming.
[97] DATED this 27° day of January, 2021

BY THE COURT:

wl

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THREAT REINS
‘STATE QF WYOMING

In the matter of IN 5

NICK EDWARD BEDUHN,
WSB No. 6-3763,

Respondent.

0007

 

STIPULATION FOR REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 26()(6)(B)

 

‘THIS MATTER came before # Review Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility
‘on the 15 day of December, 2020, for consideration of Respondent's Verified Petition for
Reinstatement. Present for the video hearing were Review Panel members Jffiey A. Donnell,
‘chair, John A. Masterson, lawyer member, and

 

isha Rone, lay member. Also in attendance
were Nick Edward Beduhn, Respondent, Mark W. Gifford, Bar Counsel, and Brandi Robinson,
[BPR Clerk. The Review Panel, having reviewed the Verified Petition for Reinstatement, parties”
‘Stipulation for Reinstatement, te supporting affidavit of Respondent and being flly advised in
the premises, finds, concludes and recommends:
Bindings of Fect

1, In 2016 and 2017, six complaints against Respondent were received by the Office
of Bar Counsel. Together, the complaints told the story of lawyer who was operating ina way
that evidenced profound neglect of his clients, Clearly, Respondent’ law practice had gotten
sway from him. lite face of mounting evidence thet Respondent's cients were suffering as @
‘result, Bar Counsel filed a petition for Respondent's immediate suspension pursuant to Rule 17,
WIR Disc.P. The Wyoming Supreme Court granted Bar Counse’s petition and issued an order of
Respondent's immediate suspension effective May 10, 2017.
2. Fiveofthe complaints were consolidated in a formal charge that was beard by the
Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) in une 017, The BPR found clear and convincing
‘evidence of Respondent's neglect of numerous clients and recommended thatthe Court suspend.
Respondents license fora period of two years, Further, tbe BPR recommended that Respondent
be required to reimburse one ofthe Complainants the amount of $1,075.85, that Respondent be
required to pay administrative fees of $3,750.00 ($750.00 for each ofthe five complaints that
‘were consolidated inthe formal charge), and that Respondent be required to pay cost in the
‘mount of $5,475.18 to the Wyoming State Ba. In an order dated August 4, 2017, the Court
‘cdopted the BPR’s report and recommendation in all respects and suspended Respondent from
‘the practice of law fora period of two years, effective May 10,2017, the date of Respondent's
immediate suspension. See Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Beduin, 02 P.34 950 (Wyo, 2017).

3. A sixth complaint against Respoodent was submited bya client in March 2017,
Respondent filed to respond to Bar Counsel's eters of inquiry regarding the complain. As a
result Bar Counsel obtained authority to file a second formal charge against Respondent, which
was heard bythe BPR ina telephonic hearing in October 2017. Finding clear and convincing
‘evidence of Respondents violation of numerous Rules of Professional Conduct nthe nature of
‘lien neglet, the BPR recommended that Respondent be suspended for an addtional six
‘months, that he reimburse the client inthe amount of $1,000.0, that be be ordered to pay an
‘edministrative fe of $750.00 and that he be required to reimburse the Wyoming State Bar for
‘costs inthe amount of $605.15. In an order dated November 22,2017, the Court adopted the
'BPR’s report and recommendation in all respect and suspended Respondent from the practice of
Jaw for an additonal six months bepining May 10, 2019. See Bd of Prof Resp, Bedul, 406
Pd 1220 (Wyo.2017).
4, Prior to taking a wrong tur in 2016, Respondent was recognized by his peers

‘throughout the tate asa capable and industrious trial lawyer. For example, he represented Sergei
‘Yates in an action to recover funds that had been embezzled by Cody attomey Jody Vannoy from
‘trust of which Yates was the beneficiary. Yates, a Russian orphan, had been adopted by 2 well-
to-do New Jersey couple, Charles and Anya Yates. Sergei's adoptive parents and two siblings

were killed in a plane crash on October 10, 2000.' A trust was set up for Sergei, funded by his
‘mother’s estate. Through an unlikely series of events, Vannoy was appointed trustee of Sergei's
‘rust and proceeded, over period of several years, to divert trust assets to her own use.

5. Respondent, just few years out of law school atthe time, successfully
prosecuted the civil action against Vannoy and, after two years of tortured proceedings, obtained
'8 judgment against her inthe amount of $695,565.31 in August 2012. Respondeat also testified
‘at Vannoy’s disbarment hearing in December 2012. See Ba. of Prof. Resp. v. Vannoy, 296 P.34
926 (Wyo, 2013)?

6 Forthose familiar with Respondent and his reputation as an up-and-coming trial
lawyer, it seemed incongruous that his practice would take such a bad turn just a few years after
his exemplary representation of Sergei Yates. Respondent's affidavit of factual basis explain in
‘blunt terms how his law practice became derailed, “Around 2011, I became the Supervising
Public Defender of Park and

 

Horm Counties. During this time, I also presented atthe Public
Defender conferences and became qualified to defend death penalty cases. I traveled the state
snd defended numerous other murder cases, managed my private office, and raised a family.”
7. Looking beck, Respondent reflects, “One ofthe biggest issues was just not having
time forall was doing in 2016-2017.

 

then I have slowed down and want the same for my

 

See bps om2000/0/ seston cha te-6-bankeranden ope ey Jes hin
* For more abot te strange cae of Serge Yates, se ins: powellaune comisrison-stwne-ferlise
lense S288.

3
practice, Atthat time, had over «hundred Pubic Defender case, including high profile
‘murders, in addition to approximately forty private practice cases. This does not even take into
‘consideration the amount of traveling I was doing, Frankly, was overworked.”

8. According to Respondent, things came to a head late in 2016: “In 2016, the
ugeting of way too many balls in the air started to catch up. My daughter was sixteen and my
son was six years old. In reviewing the twenty-nine page Report and Recommendation for Two
‘Year Order of Suspension, it certainly brought back lot of memories of what my life was like
‘back then. I remember in December 2016, I was packing my bags to head to Cheyenne for
‘another murder case. In that instant, I was wondering what I was doing. I packed my suitcase for
tree weeks. was headed there for cither thee days of motion hearings and potentially seting
‘the case, or I would be there for three weeks for a full blown not guilty by reason of mental
illness (NGMI) murder trial. Leaving my children behind, boping they would be taken care of,
all the while not taking care of myself or my practice.”

9. With the benefit of hindsight, Respondent acknowledges that his practice had
‘gotten away from him: “I was everywhere but nowhere. There was a lack of diligence,
‘competence, and communication with my clients. Clients were upset, and Judges did not
understand what was happening with my private and Public Defender practice. Everyone saw the
coacoming tain wreck but me, Itook on more than I should, and my practice reflected this in
2016 and 2017.”

10. Following his suspension, while living off the remains of his retirement account,
Respondent apprenticed with Freedom Fighter Bail Bonds, a company owned by fiend. In this
Position, Respondent was responsible for daily or weekly check-ins with clients of the bonding
‘company. Respondent describes this as an eye-opening look atthe criminal justice system from
sn ntirey different perspective. As sated in his affidavit, “The biggest complaint of al rom the
people I monitored was not being able to speak with ther attorney. Because of ll the contacts 1
created across the state, [could normally assist them with this basic element of the atiomey-
client relationship. This made me realize how so many of my clients felt. A simple three-minute
‘Phone call can relieve the stress ofa client who is walking blindly through a judicial system that
is very foreign to most. *** It provided a perspective that was new tome and one that makes me
‘more fly eppreciat the communication aspect ofthe attomey-clien relationship.”

11, 12018, Respondent moved from Cody to Buffalo. While continuing his work
‘ith the bil bonding company, he became invoived with the Incarceration Diversion Program, a
Pilot program administered by Judge Edelman, As described by Respondent, the program “looks
‘nd feels lik private probation but has a more therapeutic element than what standard probation
an offer. I assisted [the program coordinator] with breathalyzers, monitoring, andthe occasional
drug testing 1 aluoelped her consult with several clin, and I would goto court with he to
offer support or provide leters of recommendation on behalf of her clients. Isl asist he, and
the program, when called upon. Ihave never been compensated financially for my time involved,
‘nd I never requested it. looked ait as another opportunity to participate in the judicial
sytem."
12, Imhis petition fr reinstatement, Respondent disclosed an incident n which be
filed a motion to set aside a bond forfeiture inthe Sith Judicial District Court on behalf of
Freedom Fighter Bail Bonds, In his affidavit, Respondent explains, “The case was State of
Wyoming . Christopher Johnson, CR-8415, in Judge Rumpke’s cour. During my
sppreticeship with Freedom Fighter Bail Bonds, I was made a member ofthe corporation for
‘his purpose so that we could represent the corporation without th cost of an atiomey.
‘Unbeknownst to me, there is a Uniform District Court Rule that explicitly prohibits this, UDCR
101(b) states, “Corporations and unincorporated associations (other than partnerships and
‘individual propretorship(s)) may appear only through an attorney licensed to practice in
Judge Rumpke was polite enough to point this ule out, and I agreed. I asked to
‘withdraw the motion and told the Court that we would hire an attorney to propecly address a

Wyoming

 

‘motion filed by a licensed attorney. Iwas ignorant of tis rule. Shortly thereafter, I contacted Bar
‘Counsel and told him my mistake. There was not a formal investigation and he thanked me for
Jetting him know."

13, Respondent further explains, “t was an honest mistake, and I take full
responsibilty for not knowing the UDCR 101(b).I believe the bond was $10,000 and T was
‘tying to help the company and save some costs. The background ofthe case was that Mr.
‘Johnson failed to appear for his sentencing and was originally charged with a felony for
Possession with Intent to Distribute for Marijuana. As he was a fugitive who fled to Oregon, 1
was able to use my contacts with the

 

‘S, Marshal's offices in Wyoming snd Oregon to assist in
‘Mr. Johnson's apprehension. Mr. Johnson was found in southern Oregon by the U.S. Marshal's
‘Fugitive Task Force and trnsported back to Wyoming to face his pending charge. Attomey
Mike Fuller was contacted and he represented the corporation. The bond was not forfeited. This
‘was as close as came to practicing law inthe last three years I do not believe ths rises to a
level that would not allow reinstatement of my license.”

14, Bar Counsel concurs. Rule 7 of the Rules Governing the Wyoming State Bar and
the Authorized Practice of Law provides, “Any person may at pro se in a matter in which that
person isa party.” Respondent had the mistaken notion that there was nothing improper about
filing « motion on behalf ofa company of which he was a member. When the applicable rule was
‘brought to Respondent's atention by Judge Rumpke, Respondent promptly self-reported the
‘incident to Bar Counsel, claiming that it was an honest mistake on his par. Further, Respondent
took prompt remedial messures. In Bar Counsel's opinion, Respondent's action in filing the
‘motion should not disqualify him from reinstatement.

15, The Review Pane finds that Respondeat’s single transgression, which was
Promptly remedied and not repeated thereafter, should not disqualify him ffom retuming to the
practice of law.

16, Ashe explains in his affidavit, Respondent did not make the decision to seek
‘einstatement lightly. Though he became eligible to seek reinstatement on November 10, 2019,
‘Respondent was not certain that he wanted to return to practice. As Respondent explains, “After
‘the summer of 2020 and aftr a lot of soul searching, I decided I was ready. I saw too many
Injustices, heard too many stories of inadequate representation, I knew I had to get back. 1
believe Ihave something to offer to the people of Wyoming, the bar, and want to continue to
‘assist the judicial system.”

17. Once he made the deision to seek reinstatement, Respondent set about preparing
‘himself for a retum to practice in eamest:

‘+ “Prior to filing my petition for reinstatement, the first thing that I did was review the Law
(Office Sef-Audit Checklist on the Wyoming State Bar's webpage. This wll be my main
{guideline for my practice.”

‘* “Alter that, found a wonderful CLE that Ms. Kate Strike put on for solo or small
practices. This was certainly enlightening and provided wonderful ideas.”

‘+ “Tmade an appointment with local accountant, who will be of great assistance. Their
‘company provides the ability to send monthly ill, and Ill beable to keep hourly logs

daily through their app. They do this through an encrypted cloud-besed QuickBooks. The

‘app can also keep track of mileage. Ths will simplify the day-to-day operation of my law

practice.”

‘+ “Next, I met with my loca bank officer to set up an IOLTA account and operating
‘account. They are ready for my information fiom the Secretary of State, I did wait to file
with the Secretary of State until my meeting withthe accountants to see what type of
corporation would provide the best tax outcome.”

7
‘+ “Then, I went to work on a business plan that incorporated my vision for my law practice
going forward. I decided that checks and balances must occur on a daily and weekly
‘basis. These include, but are not limited to, weekly communication with liens,
protecting confidentiality, creating a conflict screening program, an intake shoct,
‘engagement leter with signature line forthe cients, case management review weekly,
‘aking ona limited numberof cases, descriptive billing forall civil cass (civil eases will
be kept to a minimum), and closing letter.”

'* Since October 2020, Respondent has completed more than 20 hours of CLE including 8

‘hours of ethics. He is compliant in completing his required hours for 2019 and well on his

‘way to satisfying the required hours for 2020.

‘+ Respondent bes paid his license fees for 2020-2021 and is curent on all fees and other
assessments.

18, Inhis affidavit, Respondent expresses profound regret over his conduct in the
2016-2017 timeframe. In Respondent's words, “I recognize that who I was in 2016-2017 was an
‘attomey who bit off more than be could chew, and my clients suffered more thaa can be
<escribed, even inthe Board of Professional Responsibilty’s reports and recommendations.” In
‘support of his belief that he has been rehabilitated, Respondent reflects, “I can look back atthe
‘inadequate representation I provided with much embarrassment, regret and chagrin, I can look
‘towards the future, and fully see what it will ake to practice like I know how and how I started
in this profession. I might have taken a longer road to gett this poin, but I know it was for @
‘reason. [needed more self-reflection and thoughtfulness before I knew it was time to come back
to the practice of law.”

19, Respondent asserts, and Bar Counsel concurs, that Respondent has met the
‘requirements for reinstatement set forth in Rule 22(0X8), W.R.Dise.P.

20, Respondent has complied with all requirements ofthe Court's two orders of
suspension. As discussed above, what might have been a brush with the unauthorized practice of
‘aw was unintentional, quickly averted and self-reported to Bar Counsel,

21, Bar Counsel has had extensive communications with Respondent since he decided
‘0 eck reinstatement, including providing one-on-one continuing legal education regarding
‘thicel challenges in client representation. Through these interactions, Respondent has at all
times presented himself as a conscientious lawyer who has leamed from his mistakes and vows
to correct them.

22, Im Respondent's words, “If | am reinstated, I wll practice in a modest and smaller
‘manner than before my suspension. In catching up on my CLE requirement, {looked for
presentations that particularly focused on recent events, opening a small practice, and recent
‘updates regarding rales and Wyoming Supreme Court opinions (both civil and criminal)” Id,
15, “If 1 am reinstated, I believe I have planned accordingly to start small and assist the people of.
‘Wyoming. I want a small practice thats client driven I believe thatthe efforts Ihave made
show that I am ft forthe practice of aw.”

23, Finally, Respondent enjoys the support of his colleagues, as evidenced by the
letters of recommendation submitted to the Review Panel. These peers will no doubt serve a &
‘Valuable support system as Respondent retums to the practice of law. Moreover, three ofthe
‘Complainants in the underlying disciplinary cases, two of whom were district court judges, wrote
letters in support of Respondent's reinstatement.

24, Respondent timely fled a Verified Petition for Reinstatement on November 9,
2020, and paid the requisite $500.00 filing fee, The Verified Petition states, and Bar Counsel
stipulates, thatthe Verified Petition satisfies the requirements of Rule 22(b\(3), W.RDiscP.

25, In accordance with Rule 22(6\5), W.R. DiscP., copies of the Verified Petition
‘were served upon all complainants in the underlying disciplinary proceedings, who were given
‘thirty days to submit their written comments tothe BPR. The three complainants who responded
all support Respondents reinstatement.
26. Inllight of the foregoing, the Review Panel finds that Respondent has met the
requirements of Rule 22, W.R.Dise.P. and should be reinstated,
‘Conclusions of Law

27, Determinations regarding a suspended or disbarred lawyer's reinstatement are
‘made pursuant to Rule 22, W.R Dise.P. Rule 22(b) provides, “An attomey who has been
<isbarred or suspended fora period of greater than six (6) months may seek to return to active
‘satus by filing a verified petition for reinstatement with the BPR and serving a copy on Bar
Counsel.”

28, Rule 22(6X3) provides:

(@) The verted petion for reinstatement shall set forth te facts other than
passage of time and absence of additional misconduct upon which the
petitioning atiomey relics to etblsh that the attomey posses all of the
{usifcatons required of epplicans fr admission tote Wyoming Site Bar,
filly considering the previous disciplinary action taken aghinst the aiorey,
and sal inelude certification tat:
(A) The storey is current on the payment of annual license fees and any
late charges;
(B) The attomey has complied with all continuing legal education
= ‘during the disciplinary period and has paid all necessary
(© Restitution has been made as ordered to any persons andthe Client
Protection Fund, including the source and amount of funds used to make
restition; and
©) The storey has complied with all requirements of the Cours
disciplinary order.

29. Rule 22(b)(4) provides:

4) The attorney seeking reinstatement must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the storey has been rehabilitated, has complied wit al
applicable disciplinary orders and with all provisions ofthese ules, has not
engaged inthe unauthorized practice of law, and isto practice aw

30. Rule 22(b)(6) provides in relevant part:

(© Reinstatement proceedings following disciplinary suspension or disbarment.
w

®

Immediately upon receipt of « verified petition for reinstatement, Bar
Counsel shall conduct any investigation Bar Counsel deems necessary.
‘The potitoner shall cooperate in any such investigation,

Following investigation, Bar Counsel and the attomey may stipulate to
reinstatement by submitting to the BPR a writen stipulation and
affidavit of the attomey which provides a detailed description of the
factual basis for compliance with the requirements for reinstatement.
‘Any such stipulation shall be approved or disapproved by a Review
‘Panel If the stipulation is approved, a report and recommendation shall
be transmited to the Cour. If accepted by the Court, the Court shall
issue its order stating that the atiomey is reinstated tothe practice of law,
‘which may include any conditions the Court deems appropriate”

‘Recommendation

‘The Hearing Panel recommends that Respondent be reinstated tothe practice of law.
DATED this 2% day of December, 2020.

A
Review Panel Chair
Board of Professional Responsibility
‘Wyoming State Bar