Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. John Joseph DeLeon, WSB # 6-3387

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2019 WY 114
October Term, A.D. 2019
November 14, 2019
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
- D-19-0010
JOHN JOSEPH DELEON, WSB
46-3387,
Respondent. |
ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

IS 1] This matter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure,” filed herein October 31, 2019, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for
the Wyoming State Bar, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure (Stipulated Discipline). The Court, after a careful review of the Board of
Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation and the file, finds that the
Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court,
and that Respondent John Joseph DeLeon should be publicly censured for his conduct. It
is, therefore,

 

 

[£2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Public Censure,” which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by
this Court; and itis further

[£3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that John Joseph DeLeon is hereby publicly
‘censured for his conduct, which is described in the Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure. The Wyoming State Bar may issue a press release consistent with the one set out

 

in the Report and Recommendation for Public Censure: and itis further:
[$4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Mr. DeLeon shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00,
representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative
fee of $750.00. Mr. DeLeon shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming Stat
Bar on or before December 31, 2019. If Mr. DeLeon fails to make payment in the time
allotted, execution may issue on the award: and itis further

 

[€5] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure,
along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, as a matter
coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and itis further

 

 

[£6] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and
Recommendation for Public Censure, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the
Pacific Reporter; and itis further

 

[£7] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure
to be served upon Respondent John Joseph DeLeon.

[£8] DATED this 14% day of November, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
Is

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF WYOMING D- 1 9-0040

In the matter of

) FILED
JOHN JOSEPH DELEON, 2 Docket No, 2019-107
WSB NO. 63387, ) OCT 3 1 208
?
Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CENSURE

‘THIS MATTER came before « Review Pane! ofthe Board of Professional Responsibility
vie telephone conference call on the 8a day of October, 2019, for consideration ofthe parties"
‘Amended Stipulation for Public Censure pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure. Present on the call were Review Panel members Christopher Hawks,
‘John Masterson and Janine Thompson. Mark W. Gifford, Bar Counsel appeared on behalf of the
‘Wyoming State Bar, Respondent John DeLeon appeared without counsel. The Review Panel
‘having reviewed the Amended Stipultion, the supporting Amended Affidavit and being fully
‘Advised in the premises, finds, concludes and recommends as follows:

Bindings of Fact

|. Respondent has been licensed to practice in Wyoming since 2001. Beginning in
2018, while he was employed as a public defender in Rawlins, Respondent had a sexual
‘lationship with Candice Nichole Cortez, a resident of Rawlins, Wyoming, who in 2016 pleaded
‘ity to second-degree sexual abuse ofa minor. Respondent was not Cortez's attorney inthe
criminal matter and never had lawyer-client relationship with her, Cortez was sentenced to
‘serve not less than thee years nor more than eight years in the custody ofthe Wyoming

SSS WO GRE

Fairy
Department of Corrections; however, the term of incarceration was suspended in liew of 8 five-
year term of supervised probation.

2 Cortez was required to comply with all requirements ofthe Wyoming Sex
(Offender Registration Act, As a registered sex offender, Cortez was required to keep the
‘Wyoming Department of Corrections, Division of Field Services (hereinafter, “Probation and
Parole”) advised of her place of residence. She was required to update such information within
‘three days of any change of residence. She could not reside within 1000 feet of a school,

3. In late 2018, Respondent left his employment as public defender in Rawlins and
‘moved to Green River, where he took a job asa civil attorney with the Sweetwater County
‘Atomey's Office, Respondent rented an apartment atthe Monroe Apartments, located at 145
Monroe Avenue in Green River, His sexual relationship with Cortez continued.

{In March 2019, Cortez moved from Rawlins to Green River. On March 12,2019,
(Cortez reported to Sweetwater County Probation and Parole that her residential address had
‘changed to 2230 Cumorah Way in Green River. On March 21, 2019, Cortez reported that her
/home address was 211 S. Su E. in Green River. As discussed more fully below, Cortez didnot
‘port that from March 11, 2019, to March 17,2019, she resided at Respondent's apartment.

5. _Incarly May 2019 Sweetwater County Probation and Parole confiscated Cortez's
cellphone and requested the Sweetwater County Sheriff's Office (*SCSO") to perform a
forensic examination ofthe device in search for evidence of probation violations. The forensic
‘examination was performed by Lieutenant Joseph Tomich of the SCSO.

6 Using the device's location history, Lieutenant Tomich discovered thet Cortez
‘spent the nights of March 11,2019, through March 17, 2019, tthe Monroe Apartments, The
Monroe Apartments are located less than 200 feet from a public school,
7. On May 20, 2018, Liewenant Tomich contacted Respondent and requested to
interview him regarding Cortez. While Lieutenant Tomich was en route tothe courthouse for the
Interview, Respondent contacted Cortez and told her he was going tobe interviewed and asked if
‘anything was happening. During the interview, which was audio recorded, Respondent told
“Lleutenant Tomich that Cortez hed spent some time at his apartment shortly after her move to
Green River but denied that Cortez had ever spent the night there. In his waitten report of the
Interview, Lieutenant Tomich described Respondent as “consistently deceptive when asked
‘questions pertaining to Cortez staying at his house during the week of March 11, 2017, through
17,2018. Lieutenant Tomich reported that Respondent tried to divert questions “to irelevant
‘opis and avoided answering questions directly.” Lieutenant Tomich described Respondent's
body language during the interview as “deceptive.”

After he completed his interview with Respondent, Lieutenant Tomich
Imerviewed Cortez. According to Lieutenant Tomich's report of the interview, Cortez admitted
‘staying with Respondent for approximately one week following her move to Green River.
‘Corea told Lieutenant Tomich tht she intentionally omitted telling Probation and Parole that
‘she was staying at Respondent's residence “to avoid causing problems for him, as their
‘eletionship got him fired from job in Rawlins.”

9. As-aresuk ofthis and other inftactions, Cortez has been charged in Sweetwater
County with violations ofthe Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act. There are also
Proceedings underway in Carbon County to revoke her probation,

10, When Respondent learned that addtional charges were brought against Cortez, he
‘contacted Bar Counsel and self-reported his conduct. Respondent has cooperated with Bar
‘Counsel in reaching a stipulation forthe aproprite disciplinary sanction for his conduct,
11, Pursuantto Rule 12 ofthe Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure,
Respondent conditionally amit that in misrepresenting where Cortez was residing during the
‘week of March 11,2019, trough March 17,2019, to Llewenant Tomich, Respondent violated
Rule 84(¢) (conduct involving dishonesty, faud, deceit or misrepreseataton) and Rule 8.4)
(conduct prejdicial oth administration of justice) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional

Conduct

12, Respondent conditionally admits that he made the misrepresenttions to
‘Lieutenant Tomich with full knowledge oftheir falsity and with knowiedge that there was the
Poteatia for harm to the administration of justice asa result of Respondent’ misrepesentations
to Lieutenant Tomich,

13, Respondent expresses extreme shame for his conduct. He fels es if be has
‘wandered his reputation and possibly is career. Respondent has apologized to Lieutenant
Tomich and clarified things with his bosses immediately after the Lieutenant's report was
writen, Respondent has also apologized to family, friends and Bar Counsel

|. The partes stipulate that in applying the applicable sanction standard asset forth
below, the presumptive sanction for Respondents violation of Rule 8.4() i «public censure.

|S, The parties stipulate that in applying the applicable sanction standard asset forth
below, the presumptive sanction for Respondent's violation of Rule &4(4) i suspension.

16 Im Respondent's cas, the parties agree that aggravating factors include: (1) a
Aisonest or selfish motive and (2) substantial experience in the practice of aw. Mitigating
‘ctor include: (1) absence of prior disciplinary record (2) fland fe dislosure to Bar
Counsel and «cooperative attitude toward proceedings; (3) remorse; and (4) good character.
‘This lat mitigating factor is demonstrated by, among other things, Respondents extensive
history of pro bono service, fr which he was recognized witha Pro Bono Award for Legal
Servic for Indigent Clients by the Wyoming Stat Bar in September 2018. The Review Panel
‘Was impressed with Respondents heartfelt expression of remorse for hs conduct. The Review
Panel nds that this mitgnting factor, aswell as Respondents impresive record of pro bono
public service, should be given great weight in determining the appropriate santion inthis
mater

17. Respondent concedes that, in consideration of the foregoing factors, a public
censure isthe appropriate sanction forthe conduct to which Respondent has conditionally
Atmited, The Review Panel agrees.

1h. Ifthe Court issues an Order of Pubic Censure in aeordance herewith, Bar
Conte and Respondent are tothe flowing rest lee:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court isued an order of public censure to Green

River attorney John Joseph DeLeon. The public censure stemmed from
DeLeon's conduct, during his employment with «county etiomney's office, in

  

dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (conduct prejudicial
tothe admniacton fue) ofthe Wyong Rul of See

{In approving the stipulation of DeLeon and Bar Counsel for public
‘censure for this conduct, a Review Panel of the Board of Professional
Responsibility noted that DeLeon did no, at any time, have an attomey-client

disciplinary process, the absence of any prior discipline, his heartfelt
‘pression of remorse for his conduc, as weil as DeL.con's extensive history
‘of exemplary pro bono service to indigent clients, were significant mitigating

|In sccepting the Review Panel's recommendation for a public censure as
the appropriate sanction for DeLeon's misconduct, the Court ordered DeLeon
to pay an administrative fee in the amount of $750.00 and costs of $50.00 to
the Wyoming State Bar.
‘Conclusions of Lae
19, Rule 15(0)(3)(D), W.R.D.P., provides, “In imposing a sanction after a finding of
‘misconduct by the respondent, the BPR shall consider the fellowing factors, as enumerated in the
‘ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanetions:”

|." Whether the lawyer has violated « duty owed to client, to the public, 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.

20, Hiss Factor: The Duty Violated. Respondents violation of Rule 8.4(c) implicates

‘Standard $.1,“Fallure to Maintain Personal Integrity":

‘Absent aggrvaing or mitigating cumstances, vpon apliction ofthe
test i i nd 2. te owing sa ne
in cases involving commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in
‘cases with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

sal Disharest goal eprops When:
() a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, « necessary element
cf which includes intentional interference withthe administration
(of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion,
‘misappropriation, oF theft; o the sal distribution or importation of
controlled substances; or the intentional kiling of another; or an
‘tempt or conspiracy or solicitation of any other commit any af
these offenses; or
©) lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously
512 Suynton spol spear a ey eggs
12 Suspension is ger a ingly
criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard
5.11 and that seriously reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
5.13 Reprimand [L, “public censure” under Rule 9(a)(3) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally approprite when a lawyer
engages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit oF
mitrepresentation and tat adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
Practice law.
5.14 Admonition [i., “private reprimand” under Rule 9(8)4) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when lawyer engages in
‘any other conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice
law.

21. Violations of Rule 8.4() fall within Standard 6.1, which 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 conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or
‘that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentaton toa court:

6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriste when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the
‘court, makes «false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds
‘material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or
causes 8 significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal

proceeding.

6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or
documents are being submitted to the court or that material information ts
Improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury oF
Potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or
potentially adverse effec onthe legal

613 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in
determining whether the statements or document are false or in taking remedial

‘injury to a party to the legal system, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse
effect on the legal proceeding.

614 Admonition is generally sppropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated
instance of neglect in determining whether the submitted statements or
documents are false or in filing to disclose material information upon learning of
its falsity, and causes litle or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes
little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding

72. ‘Second Factor. The Lawyer's Mental State. 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 state is that of intent, when the lnwyer acts with the conscious objective or
purpose to accomplish a particular result. The next most culpable mental state te
‘that of knowledge, when the lawyer acts 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 resuk. The least culpable mental
sate is negligence, when 2 lawyer fas to be aware of a substantial risk that
Ciecumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation of a
‘cere that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation,

%. Thin Eacio_Actualor Potential Injury. Under the ABA Standards, “injury” is
Aefined as “harm to a lient, the public, the legal system, or the profession which results from a
lawyer's misconduct, The level of injury can range from ‘serious’ injury to ‘litle or no* injury; a
‘reference to ‘injury’ 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 reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's miseonduct, and which, but for some
intervening fctor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct.”

2a ‘Fourth Eactar- Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. ABA Standard 9.0, entitled
“Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as follows:
9.1 Generaily
After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating,
— ao
“eae
sa Sa lari eames dems
See See es
aon
7 —
=
(a) prior disciplinary offenses;
Seton
Sienaent
a ee
ee
intentionally failing ‘0 comply with rules or orders of the
tt
0 Set TO te nen os or
cee pena
gman
() vulnerability of the victim;
@)_ substantial experience in the practice of law;
3 ree
legal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled
‘substances, eee

931 Deftion. Mignon or migingcicumstances area
Sonsierations or factors that may jsly «reduction Inthe depres of
(a) absence of prior disciplinary record;

(©) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;

() personal or emotional problems;

(@) ‘timely good faith effort to make restiution or to rectify
‘consequences of misconduct;

© fall and free disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings;

(f inexperience in te practice of law;

(@ characte or epaion;

() physical disability,

(mental dissbility or chemical dependency including alcoholism or
drug abuse when:
(D 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 meaningful and
sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and

(A) the recovery amested the misconduct and recurence of that
‘misconduct is unlicely.

detain ciniptnry proceedings,
OF nplalon of oe psn cons
(0 remorse and

94 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
‘The following factors should not be considered as either aggravating nor

mitigating
(a) forced or compelled restitution;
() agreeing tothe client's demand for certain improper behavior or result;
{9 retin pr Coolest pec
(4) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary
{) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
(© failure of injured client to complain,

‘Recommendation

» In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Review
Pane! recommends as follows:

 

|} That Respondent receive a public censure for violations of Rule 84() and 8.4(4),
WARProfCond,

10
2. That, upon issuance of the order of public censure, the foregoing press release
‘may be issued.

3. That Respondent be required to pay an administrative fee of $750.00 and costs of
$50.00 the Wyoming Sate Bar within 10 days of sch one.

Dated tis 22 aay of October, 2018

‘Chair
Review Panel of the Board of Professional

Worn Se Ber