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

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 91
April Term, A.D. 2020
Sly 18,2020

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
\ 20-0002
MICHAEL J. PEARCE, WSB #
7.4838,
Respondent.

OnDER OF DispARMENT

[4.1] This matter came before the Court upon the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Order of Disbarment,” filed herein June 2, 2020. The
Court notes Respondent Michael J. Pearce did not file any objection to the Report and.
Recommendation. See Rule 16, Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The Court,
afler 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 Michael J. Pearce should be disbarred. Its, therefore,

    

[42] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Order of 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

[413] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduet set forth in the
Report and Recommendation for Order of Disbarment, Respondent Michael J. Pearce shall
be, and hereby is, disbarred, effective immediately; and itis further

 
[14] 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 attomeys; and itis further

{95] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Respondent shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $549.75,
representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay administrative fees
of $1,500.00, Respondent shall pay the total amount of $2,049.75 to the Wyoming State
Baron or before October 1, 2020. If Respondent fails to make payment in the time allotted,
‘execution may issue on the award; and itis further

 

 

[96] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Disbarment,
Along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Order of Disbarment, as &
‘matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and its furher

[£7] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this Order of Disbarment, along with the incorporated Report and
Recommendation for Order of Disbarment, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter
and the Pacific Reporter; and itis further

(48] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Disbarment
to be served upon Respondent Michael J. Pearce.

[99] DATED this 15* day of July, 2020,
BY THE COURT:
Ws

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
IN THE SUPREME CouAT

STATE QF YIYOMING

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UN 02.2000
STATE OF WYOMING
In the mane of.
‘MICHAEL J. PEARCE ‘BPR Nos. 2019-075 & 2019-126

WSB No, 7-4838,

se D-20-0002

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER OF DISBARMENT

 

 

‘THIS MATTER came before a Hearing Panel ofthe Board of Professional Responsibility
of the Wyoming State Bar ("BPR") on May 14, 2020, fora telephonic sanction hearing pursuant
to Rule 15(6)(3\C), W.RDiscP. Panel members Christopher H. Hawks (Chait), Janine
‘Thompson and Robert C. Jarosh were in attendance. The Wyoming State Bar was represented
bby Bar Counsel, Mark W. Gifford. Respondent appeared on his own behalf.

Procedural History

1, The Formal Charge in this mater (wihich consolidated two separate disciplinary
investigations) was filed on January 9, 2020, Personal service was made on Respondent on
“Tanuary 16,2020. Sad service was effective pursuant to Rule 13(b), W.R.DIse.P,

2. Respondent did not file an answer and default was entered on February 10, 2020.
‘As a result of Respondent's failure to file an answer, all allegations of the Formal Charge are
deemed admitted,

3. On March 5, 2020, an Order Setting Sanction Hearing was issued.

4, On April 28, 2020, an Order Setting Telephonic Sanction Hearing and Setting
Deadline was issued. ‘The order required the parties to file listings of hearing exhibits and
‘witnesses (with hearing exhibits attached) by May 7, 2020. Respondent did not file a listing of
hearing exhibits and witnesses.
 

5. All members of the Panel were in attendance atthe May 14, 2020, sanction
hearing, as were Bar Counsel and Respondent,

6 ‘Bar Counsel's Exhibits BC-1 through BC-7 were received into evidence without
objection from Respondent.

Findings of Fact

7. Respondents curently serving a one-year suspension, commencing August 22,
2019, See Board of Prof. Resp. v. Pearce, 2019 WY 85,446 P-3d 717 (Wyo. 2019). Respondent
‘was admitted to the Wyoming State Bar in 2012 and at all imes relevant o this proceeding
‘maintained a private practice of law in Laremie, Wyoming.

‘BPR No. 2019-075

8, The investigation in BPR No, 2019-75 commenced following receipt on July 2,
2018, of a complain from Donald Gene Sikora, a client of Respondent. Respondent represented
“Mr, Sikora ina criminal mater in cleut court in Rawlins. Mi. Sikora complained that
‘Respondent failed to communicate with him and fled to return the fle after the representation
ended. Mr. Sikora provided a dealled timeline regarding his communications with respondent
from early May through late June 2018. According tothe timeline, Respondent advised Mr.
‘Sikora that he was terminating his representation of Mr, Sikora on June 24, 2019:

[wanted to advise I will be sending your file as Iwill be withdrawing from

your case. I have engaged in other pursuits that keep me from practicing law and

hhave not been able to dedicate time sufficient toi. I need to copy your file before

‘sending it to you. This way you can find more attentive help than I can provide

rightnow.

8. On July 8, 2019, Bar Counsel inated an investigation, sending a copy of Mr,
Sikora's complaint and requesting a written response by July 22,2019, Bar Counsel cited
possible violation of Rale 1.3 (ligece), Rue 1.4 (communication with client) and Rule 1.16
(termination of representation.
10. Respondent did not submit a timely written response, On July 26, 2019, Bar
‘Counsel sent another letter requesting a response and reminding Respondent of his obligation to
Cooperate with Bar Counsel's inquires pursuant to Rule 8.1(b), W.R-Prof.Cond, and Rule 8(3),
WRDiscP. Respondent did not respond.

11, On August 14, 2019, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order approving
Respondent's stipulated, one-year suspension, with the period of suspension to commence
August 22, 2019.

12, On September 9, 2019, Bar Counsel received the following from Respondent:

‘Response to Sikore Complaint

Instead of going through a point by point response, Ihave decided to give my
‘recounting of my service to Mr. Sikora. In late winter or early spring of 2017, 1
‘was retained by Mr. Sikora for representation in a criminal matter conceming
‘charges against him in Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming. Tal was set for
‘November, 2017, wherein we had a day long wil and he was found guilty of
Interference witha police officer and public nuisance.

‘Mr. Sikora asked that I help him appeal the decision, and timely did so, The
Court took its time in rendering a decision, but eventually did so without a
hearing. 1 was waiting for the decision for some time, and Me. Sikora kept asking
{or updates, to which I would reply there was none. As I was preparing for a
request fo a hearing or review this surnmer, I heard thatthe Court had rendered
‘an opinion in favor ofthe state on the appeal. It was during this time tha had
Jeamed of my forthcoming suspension and told Mr. Sikora would not be able to
further represent him. He asked to meet a last to exchange the fle, and we had
agreed over a weekend but I did not hear from him that weekend,

{have his file and am happy to retum that to him, have, however, provided
‘him with all relevant material prior during the lead to his trial and afterwards. He

‘has made [sic] particularly concerned with subpoena’, [sie] and I have provided
all that Ihave.

13, Mr. Sikora was provided with a copy of Respondent's response and was given the
‘opportnity to submit additional evidence in support of his complaint. On October 3,2019,
‘additional documents were received from Mr. Sikora. On October 17, 2019, the new information

received from Mr. Sikora was mailed to Respondent with a request for a response by October 31,
3
2019. A follow-up request dated November 14, 2019, met with no response, As of May 14,
2020, Respondent has yet to retum Mt. Sikora’s fle.

14, Respondent's fallure and refusal to cooperate with Bar Counsel's investigation in
‘BPR No, 2019-075 constitutes a violation of Rule 8.1(b), W.R-Prof.Cond, and Rule 8(@),
W.R.DiscP. In addition, in failing to file an answer wo the formal charge, Respondent Is deemed
‘tw have admitted to violations of Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4 (communication with client) and
Rule 1.16 (termination of representation).

[BER No. 2019-126

18. On Ociober 22, 2019, Bar Counsel received a new complain aganst Respondent,
submited on behalf of two of Respondent's fomer clients, Isaac and Courmey Gordon, whom
Respondent represented In ltigation with Big Sky Insulation, Ine. ("Big Sky"). The complaint
Provided evidence that Respondent acted incompetently and fraudulently in his representation of
‘the Gordons, who engaged new counsel to file a malpractice suit against Respondent inthe
Second Judicial District Court, Albany County, Wyoming, on October 15,2019.

16, The malpractice complaint generally alleged that in Respondent’ representation
‘ofthe Gordons in tigation with Big Sky Insulation, In, Respondent failed to comply with the
‘court's scheduling order failed to prepare his clients" case; alle to conduct discovery; failed to
‘spond to discovery; caused hs clients to be sanctioned for discovery violations; and failed to
{inform bs clients of settlement offers or of sanctions that had been levied agains them as a
result of Respondent's misconduct, Respondent produced a settlement agreement purportedly
‘signed by his cents, but the signatures were not the elles. The malpractice complaint
Included allegations offraud/forgery, constructive fraud, professional negligence, breach of
 

‘contract and equtable indemnification. ‘The complaint sought compensatory damages inthe
‘mount of $250,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of $100,000.

17. On October 25, 2019, Bar Counsel sent a copy of the Woelk complaint to
‘Respondent and asked him to respond, idenifying posible violtons of Rules 1.1 (competence),
13 (lgence), 1.4 (communication with cient), 3.4(¢)(@sobeying rues ofthe wibunal) and
‘8.4(c) (dishonest conduct). Respondent did not respond.

18. On November 12,2019, Respondent ied a one-paragraph answer tothe district
court malpractice action, stating:

Comes Now, Michal J. Pearce, Pro Se, and hereby offers a general denial of

all of the accusations included in the Plaintiff's response [sic] and requests,

‘Pursuant to Rule 40(A)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, to proceed

towards methods of aliemative dispute resolution to resolve this matter,

19. The attorney who filed the malpractice action on behalf of the Gordons testified
«at Respondents sanction hearing regarding roblesome things he discovered in Respondents
files relating tothe representation. Most troubling was confirmation that Respondent had forged
the Gordon's names on asetlement agreement with Big Sky and never told his cents about the
settlement. They did not lear about itunt they were served with a summons and complaint in
«subsequent action brought by Big Sky to enforce the seement agreement.

20. Gordon's malpractice anorney testified that in reviewing Respondents fle
relating to the Gordons’ case against Big Sky, he found several documents showing that
Respondent had “practiced” signing the Gordons’ names to match their actual signatures.

21. Respondent didnot have profesional labiliy coverage forthe Gordons claims.
‘The malpractice case was eventually setled by means ofa spulated judgment against
Respondent in the amount of $75,000. In the stipulated judgment, Respondent admitted that the
‘facts alleged in the complaint against him “are true and accurate.” In response to questioning by
 

‘the hearing Chair, Respondent admited to forging the Gordons’ names on the Big Sky
settlement agreement, along with other troublesome conduct commited by Respondent in his
‘representation ofthe Gordons.

22. _Inhis representation of the Gordons, Respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) (dishonest
conduct), W.R.Prof.Cond. In addition, in failing to file an answer to the formal charge,
Respondent is deemed to have admitted to violations of Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence),
1.4 (communication with client), and 3.4(c) (disobeying rles ofthe wibunal), Finally,
Respondent violated Respondent's failure and refusal to cooperate with Bar Counsel's
Jnvestigation in BPR No. 2019-126 constitutes separate violations of Rule 8.1(0),
‘W.RProf.Cond,, and Rule 8(a), W.RDiscP,

23, In-committing the foregoing misconduct, Respondent violated duties owed tothe
‘lien, the public, andthe legal system. ‘The Pane finds that violating Rule €.4(c), Respondent
‘engaged in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that
seriously adversely reflects on Respondents fess to practice.

24, ‘The Pane finds that in violating Rule 8.1(b), W.R.Prof.Cond,, and Rule 8(2),
W.R.DiscP., Respondent knowingly engaged in conduct that isa violation ofa duty owed as a
professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for Respondent.

25. In.committing the foregoing misconduct, Respondent acted with intent, Le, with
the conscious objective or purpose of accomplishing a particular result.

26. Respondent's misconduct imposed actual injury upon clients the judicial process
and the legal profession.

27, The following aggravating factors are present inthis case:

'& Prior disciplinary offenses. Respondent is presently suspended

Pursuant to @ one-year order of suspension commencing August 22,
2019. The suspension was ordered for Respondent's violations of
 

   

Rule 1.1 (competence), Rule 1.3 (diligence), Rule 1.4 (communication
with client), 3.4(c) (cnowingly disobeying an obligation existing under
the rules of the tibunal), and Rule 84(c) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). See Board of Prof.
Resp. v. Pearce, 2019 WY 85, 446 P.3d 717 (Wyo. 2019).

In addition, Respondent was the recipient of a private reprimand in
2018 for violations of Rules 1.1 (competence), 33(a) lack of candor
to the tribunal) and 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation
‘existing under the rules ofthe tribunal).

'. Dishonest or selfish motive,
cA pattem of misconduct. In significant respects, the misconduct
committed by Respondent in this matter is disturbingly similar to the
‘conduct that led to Respondent's present, one-year suspension.
Multiple offenses.
Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
falling to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. In
addition to violating Rule 8.1(0), W.RProf.Cond,, and Rule 8(2),
W.R.Disc.P,, the Panel notes that Respondent has not paid the
‘administrative fees and costs that were assessed in his one-year
‘suspension, nor did Respondent comply with his obligation to file an
affidavit pursuant to Rule 21, W.RDiscP,
28, With respect to mitigating factors, the Panel finds that Respondent may suffer
from personal or emotional problems.
29, The Panel finds that Respondent's entry into a stipulated judgment in the legal

‘malpractice case brought by the Gordons isa factor which is neither aggravating nor mitigating.

30. In light ofthe findings se forth above, the Panel finds thatthe appropriate

‘sanction for Respondent's misconduct is disbarment.

‘Conclusions of Law

31, Rule 6.1(b), W.RProf.Cond,, provides in relevant part, “{AT lawyer, ... in
‘connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not... knowingly fall to respond to a lawful demand

for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority..."
7
 

 

32, Rule 84(c), W.RProf.Cond, provides, “Its professional misconduct for lawyer
to .. engage in conduc involving dishonest, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation..."

3B. Rule 6), W.RDIscP, provides In relevant part, “Misconduct by an atomey,
{ndvidully or in concer with other, Including the following acts or omissions, shall constiure
‘rounds for dlscipline, whether or not the act or omission occured in the couse of an atorney-

‘iene relationship: ... [flalure to respond without good cause shown toa request by Bar Counsel

 

34, Rule 15(b)3)(D), W.RDisc,P, lists the factors to be considered in determining
lawyer sanctions:
(D) 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, which standards shall be applied
by the BPR in determining the appropriate sanction:

(Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed toa elient, tothe public,
to the legal system, oF othe profession;

(W)_ Whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;
(Qi). The actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and
(v)_ The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
38. ‘The American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (the

“ABA Standards") sate, “The purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings Is to protect the public
and the administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not discharge, or
ae unlikely properly to discharge their professional duties to clients, the public, the legal system,
and the legal profession’

36. ABA Standard 3.0 lists the factors tobe considered in imposing a sanction after a
finding of lawyer misconduct, and essentially mirrors the language of Rule 15(0}(3XD),
W.RDiscProc.:

 
(4) the duty violated

(©) the lawyer's mental state;

(©) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and

(4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors,

144, Standard 5.1 sets forth the sanction guidelines for lawyers who demonstrate a
failure to maintain personal integrity and is applicable to situations in which lawyers have
‘commited a violation of Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
risrepresenation:

5.1. Foilure to Maintain Personal Integrity

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the

{actors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate
in cases involving 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:

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of
‘which includes intentional interference with the administration of
Justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion,
‘misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution or importation of
‘conrolled substances; o the intentional killing of another; ot an atempt
‘or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any ofthese offenses;
or

(&) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty,
freud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on |
the lawyers 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 lawyer's fitness to practice

5.13 Repeimand (1, “public censure” under Rule 9(2)3), Wyo.R Disc Proc] 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 lawyers fimess vo practice law.
5.14 Admonition[Le,, “private reprimand” under Rule 9(aX),
‘Wyo.R Disc Proc] Is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any
other conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

45. Respondent's violation of Rule 8.1(b), W-R Prof.Cond., and Rule 8(a),
W.RDiscP,, implicates ABA Standard 7.0:

7.0 Violations of Other Duties Owed as a Professional

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 false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the
lawyer's services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper
solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or
improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from
‘misrepresentation, or failure to report professional misconduct.

7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in
conduct tht is a violation of a dary owed as professional withthe intent
(Ge, “private reprimand” under Rule 53)(4), Wyo.R.Dise Proc to obain 2
benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious
injury ta cliente public or the legal system.

7.2. Suspension is generally appropriate when 2 lawyer knowingly engages in
Conduct that sa violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury
(or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.

7.3 {Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages
{n conduct that is @ violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes
{injury or potential injury to client, the public, or the legal system.

7.4. [Private reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an
Isolated Instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed as a
professional, and causes litle or no actual or potential injury to a client, the
bli, or the legal system.

46, In this respect, courts have imposed disbarment in circumstances sirilar to those
lnvolved in Respondent's case. See, e., In re Bourcier, $39 P.2d 604, 606 (Or. 1997)
(Cisbarment for lawyer who, among other misconduct, repeatedly fled to respond to inquiries
from the bar after court had previously suspended him for the same misconduct; “(this cour

Considers the failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation to be a serious ethical
10
iolation”); In re Dickerson, 905 P.2d 1140 (Or, 1995) (disbarment under Standard 7.1, ier
alia, fr lawyer who violated rule governing duty to cooperate by falling to respond to Inquires
from disciplinary counsel after belng notified personally by the bar that he was the subject of
Investigation; lawyer's cumulative misconduct, including lying to clients, converting cliens!
funds to his own use, filing to account for clients funds, filing to return clients’ property oF
files, and neglecting legal matters entrusted to him by clients, mandated disbarment); In re
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Simmerly, 285 P3d 638, 851-52 (Wash. 2012) (applying
Standard 7.1, court disbarred lawyer who, inter alia, made intentional misrepresentations in
context of bar disciplinary Investigation; board correctly recharacterized the injury as serious,
relying on earlier decision in which court "sated unequivocally that ‘falsifying information
during an attomey discipline proceeding itself harms the public and the legal system") (ctaon
‘omited); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Agoinst Scannell, 239 P.34 332, 342 (Wash. 2010)

 

(Gresumpsve sanction is dsbarment for Inwyer who, iter all, ntenthonaly fled to coopente
in disciplinary proceedings with intent to frustrate and delay those proceedings: "If every lawyer
‘subject to a disciplinary investigation were as intransigent as [he] has been, disciplinary
proceedings would be expensive, long, and hard-fought procedural wars that might or might not
be effective at uncovering wrongdolng and protecting the public, In shor, lawyers] behavior
Poses a serious threat o lawyer slfreguladon and is rightfully redressed under ABA Stondords
sandard 72.

 

47, The preamble to the ABA Standards includes the following discussion regarding
mental state:

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

u
conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. The least

culpable menial state is negligence, when a lawyer falls to be aware of 2

substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which fallure

isa deviation of a care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation,

48, Under the ABA Standards, “injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the public, the
legal system, or the profession which resuts 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 ‘litle or no” injury.”

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

9.1 Generally

‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mltgating
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 degree of
Aiscipline to be imposed.

9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation, Aggravating factors
include:

(2) prior disciplinary offenses;
(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) apater of misconduct;
(@ maiple offenses;

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

(® submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive
‘ractices during the disciplinary process;

(@) refusal o acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(H) vulnerability ofthe victim;
 

 

(substantial experience in the practice of law;

( indifference in making restitution; and

(k)legal conduc, including that involving the use of controlled substances.
93. Mitigation

9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or
{actors that may Justify reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

{9.32 Factors which may be considered in mitigation, Mitigating factors inchade
(@) absence ofa prior disciplinary record;
(b) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) personal or emotional problems;

(@) timely good faith effort to make restitution o to rectify consequences of
misconduct;

(©) full and free disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings;

(D inexperience inthe practice of law;
(8) character or reputation;
(t) physical disability;
() mental disability oF chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug
abuse when:
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by 2
chemical dependency or mental disability;

(@) the chemical dependency or mental disability caused the
misconduct;

() the respondent’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental
isabiliy is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of
successful rehabilitation; and

(@) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that
‘misconduct is unlikely.

B
 

G) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(ke) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
() remorse; and
(n) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.

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

(@) forced or compelled resution;
(©) agreeing to the client's demand for certain improper behavior or result;
(© withdrawal of complain against the lawyer;
(@) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;
(©) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
(© allure of injured client to complain.
50. With respect to costs of disciplinary proceedings, Rule 25, W.R.DiscP., provides:
Rule 25. Expenses and Cost

(2) The expenses of members ofthe BPR, the ROC, Bar Counsel, and Special
Bar Counsel, costs of a Disciplinary Judge, and other expenses incurred in the
Implementation or administration of these rues, shall be paid with funds allocated
for that purpose by the Wyoming State Bar. The Wyoming State Bar shall
compensate and pay the expenses of Disciplinary Judges.

(©) In addition to any coss asessed by the BPR, the ROC or the Court, an
administrative fee of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) shall be imposed by
‘the BPR in all cases where private discipline, diversion, or public discipline is
‘ordered. The administrative fe shall be assessed ona per-complaintbais.

(©) “Costs” means actual expenses incurred by Bar Counsel, the ROC, the
'BPR, and the Wyoming State Bar in connection with a disciplinary proceeding,
reinstatement proceeding or diversion program, including without limitation the
cost of deposiions used in a proceeding, hearing transcripts, copying costs,

conference call and other telephone expenses, fees for service of process and
subpoenas, witnesses fees, fees pid to expen witnesses, and costs associated with

“
travel, meals and lodging forthe ROC, the BPR, the BPR Clerk and the Office of
Bar Counsel.

(@ When an atiomey is privately disciplined, the BPR or the ROC may assess
‘against the attomey the costs incurred in connection with the Investigation and
disciplinary proceeding, together with the administrative fee.

(©) When public discipline is recommended by the BPR, it shall certify to the
Court the costs incurred in connection with the investigation and disciplinary
proceeding, together with the administrative fee. The BPR may recommend to the
‘Court the assessment of those costs and, ifthe Court imposes discipline, the Court
may assess all or any part ofthe cerified costs, together with the administrative
fee, against respondent.

(O In any case where costs and fees are assessed, they shall be paid to the
‘Wyoming State Bar.

‘Recommendation

‘Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Hearing Panel recommends that
the Court issue an order of disbarment to Respondent; that Respondent be required to pay an
‘administrative fee of $1,500.00 as provided in Rule 25(b), W.R-Disc.P.; and that Respondent be

‘required to relmburse the Wyoming State Bar for certified costs ofthis proceeding as provided in

Rule 25(e), W.RDiscP.
Dated 9EH_ day of May, 2020.

Chasen Haste
(Christopher H. Hawks

Haring Panel Chair

Board of Professional Responsibility
‘Wyoming State Bar

 

8