Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Ronald G. Pretty, WSB # 5-1466

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 55

April Term, A.D. 2020
April 29, 2020

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING

STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

v. 1-20-0001

RONALD G. PRETTY, WSB # 5-146,

Respondent.

ORDER OF 90-DAY SUSPENSION

[£1] This matter came before the Court upon the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
“Report and Recommendation for Order of 90-Day Suspension,” filed herein April 14,
2020, 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 Ronald G. Pretty should be suspended from the practice of law for
90 days. Itis, therefore,

 

[$2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’
Report and Recommendation for Order of 90-Day Suspension, 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, as a result of the conduet set forth in the
Report and Recommendation for Order of 90-Day Suspension, Respondent Ronald G.
Pretty shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days,
‘with the period of suspension to begin May 11, 2020; 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; and i is further

[£5] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 2S of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Respondent 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. Respondent shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar on or before July 1, 2020. If Respondent fails to make payment in the time allotted,
execution may issue on the award; and itis further

 

 

[$6] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of 90-Day
‘Suspension, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Order of 90-Day
‘Suspension, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and itis
further

 

[$7] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, this Order of 90-Day Suspension, along with the incorporated Report and
Recommendation for Order of 90-Day Suspension, shall be published in the Wyoming
Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and itis further

 

[$8] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of 90-Day
Suspension to be served upon Respondent Ronald G. Pretty.

[59] DATED this 29% day of April, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
bs

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
D-20-0001 »asegpecee

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT L
STATE OF WYOMING
In the matter of

RONALD G. PRETTY,
WSB #5-1466,

:
i

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR ORDER OF 90-DAY SUSPENSION
Oe

‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Panel ofthe Board of Professional Responsi

 

‘on the 9 day of April, 2020, for consideration ofthe Stipulation for 90-Day Suspension submit-
ted pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and the Review
Panel having reviewed the Stipulation, the accompanying affidavit of conditional admission and.
being fully advised in the premises, FINDS, CONCLUDES end RECOMMENDS as follows,

1, Respondent has been licensed to practice law in Wyoming since 1975 and main-
tins a solo practice in Cheyenne, Wyoming. As more fully described below, Respondent has
been the subject of prior dscipine.

2. The present proceeding was initiated following Bar Counsel's receipt of a com-
Plaint against Respondent from Emily Smith, Executive Director of the Wyoming Guardianship
‘Corporation (WGC). Ms. Smith's complaint related to Respondent's conduct with respect to
'WGC's ward, an elderly woman hereinafter referred to as ECH, who at all times relevant to this
‘proceeding was resident of an assisted living facility in Cheyenne,

3. In.2018, Respondent represented ECH’s adult daughter, MB, on a petition for ap-
Pointment ofa temporary or emergency guardian for ECH. As a result ofthat petition, Cheyenne
sttomey Ben Sherman was appointed as ECH’s guardian ad litem. Sherman requested that WGC
‘be appointed to serve as ECH’s guardian. In May 2019, WGC accepted ECH as a client.

4, On November 22, 2019, Respondent filed « motion on behalf of MB to require
‘WGC to allow ECH to draft « new will. In response to the motion, WGC's attomey, Doug Bai-
ley of Cheyenne, advised the district court that it should be left to ECH's estate planning attomey
{to determine if ECH had testamentary capacity. WGC’s attomey also expressed concem that it
‘would not be appropriate for Respondent to draft a will for ECH that would benefit Respondent's
client, MB. Following hearing, the district court issued an order holding that WGC was handling
the issue of ECH’s testamentary capacity and the possiblity of changing her estate plan appro-
Driately. In an order dated December 30, 2019, the district court denied Respondent's motion to
require WGC to allow ECH to draft a new will.

5. On January 7, 2020, WGC informed Mr. Bailey that MB had checked ECH out of
‘the assisted living facility and thet the sign-out sheet indicted that MB took ECH “to an ator-
‘ey.” Upon inquiry, MB refused to say where she took her mother. Mr. Bailey immediately sent
‘an email to Respondent:

 

6. Respondent responded by email on January 8, 2020:

Thave nothing but respect for Judge Sharpe. 1 have dealt with him ever since he
‘was a baby lawyer at Hirst and Applegate. However, I believe be was totally
‘wong at our last hearing, but that will be fodder for an appeal. I filed a Rule 58
‘because he led not pu in his Order what I believe he did order. Be that as it may,
{ECH] came to see me about a will. I did a standard will. What do you think f
7. The will Respondent drafted for ECH named MB as a beneficiary of ECH's es-
tte, It named MB as executrix and Respondent as aliemate executor. The new will identified
Respondent as ECH’s attomey. Apparently, the new will was never executed.

8. Asevidenced by his affidavit of factual basis, Respondent conditionally admitted
‘that his conduct asset forth above violated Rule 1.72) (conflict of interest) beceuse he undertook
‘© concurrently represent two people with potentially conflicting interests and Respondent did
‘ot obtain each elient’s written, informed consent to the dual representation. The same conduct
‘violated Rule 3.4(¢) because Respondent's actions with respect to the new will were contrary to
the district cours order. Finally, Respondent violated Rule 8.4(4) (conduct prejudicial to the
‘administration of justice) because his conduct took up the courts time and resources and caused
‘WGC to incur atomey fees thet should not have been necessary.

9. Aggravating factors include: (1) prior discipline; (2) vulnerability of the victim;
‘nd (3) substantial experience inthe practice of law.

10. Prior discipline. Respondent was the recipient of a public censure in 2013 for a
‘matter in which Respondent accepted a $2,500 retsiner to representa client. Respondent failed to
‘pecform work on the case and failed to return the client's telephone calls. The client terminated
‘Respondent's representation and submitted a complaint to Bar Counsel. In response to Bar
‘Counse's inquiry, Respondent retumed the $2,500 retainer but filed to respond to Bar Counsel's
‘Proposal that Respondent agree to a public censure, Even after formal disciplinary charges were
‘brought, Respondent continued to send the client a bill fora "balance due" in the amount of
$425.00. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent admitted that he violated Rules 1.1 (compe-
tence), 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 (communication with client) and stipulated to a public censure,
‘hich was spproved by the Board of Professional Responsibility and issued by the Wyoming
Supreme Court. Respondent was ordered to pay an administrative fee and costs totaling
$2,357.89. See Bd. of Prof. Resp, v. Prety, 295 P34 833 (Wyo. 2013).

11, Respondent received a private reprimand in 2019 after he had been sanctioned by
«district court judge for making a negligent but material misrepreseatation in a pleading. Re-
spondent admitted that such conduct violated Rules 3.1(b) (meritorious claims and contentions)
‘nd 8.4(€) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The following press release sc-
‘companied the Review and Oversight Committee's Onder of Private Reprimand:

‘The Review and Oversight Committee has issued a private reprimand to &
Wyoming attomey who was previously reprimanded and sanctioned by &
judge for making # negligent but material misrepresentation in « pleading
‘submitted to the court. The attomey agreed to the private reprimand and to
ay an administrative fee in the amount of $750.00 and costs of $50.00 to the
‘Wyoming State Bar.

12, _A.90-day suspension is an appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. If
‘the Court issues an Order of 90-Day Suspension in accordance with this report and recommenda
ton, Bar Counsel and Respondent have agreed to the following press release:

The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order suspending Cheyenne attomey
Ronald G. Prety from the practice of law for a period of ninety (90) days. The
order of suspension stemmed from Prety's conduct in drafting a will for an elder-
ly woman which named her daughter (Pretty's client) as executix and as a bene-
ficiary and identified Pretty s the elderly woman's lawyer and altemate executor.
Pretty took such action despite the fact that Pretty was aware thatthe elderly
‘woman was the ward of Wyoming Guardianship Corporation (WGC). Pretty fur-
ther took such action despite the fact that in the elderly woman's
proceeding, the district court had recently denied Pretty's motion to require WOC
to allow the elderly woman to draft a new will. Prety stipulated that his conduct
violated Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest), 3.4(c) (duty to comply with court order)
and 8.4(4) (conduct prejudicial tothe administration of justice) of the Wyoming
Rules of Professional Conduct. Prety agreed to the suapension, which was rec-
‘ommended to the Supreme Court by a Review Panel of the Board of Professional
Responsibility of the Wyoming State Ber. Pretty was ordered to pay an adminis-
trative fee in the amount of $750.00 and costs of $50.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar.
Conclusions of Law

13, Rule 1.7(@, Wyo.RProf.Cond, prohibits a lawyer from concurrent representation
of clients with conflicting interests.

14. Rule 3.4(@), Wyo.R ProfCond., provides, “A lawyer shall *** knowingly disobey
‘en obligntion under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no
valid obligation exists.”

15. Rule 84(@), Wyo.RPro£Cond,, provides, “It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to ... engage in conduct thats prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

16, Rule 15(6}3)(D), WyoRDisc Proc, provides that in imposing a sanction for
Professional conduct, the BPR shall apply the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
(the “ABA Standards"), Pertinent to the present Stipulation, it is necessary to apply the ABA
‘Standards relevant to the duties violated by Respondent as well as aggravating and mitigating
factors.

17. Respondent's violation of Rules 1.7(a) (conflict of interes) implicates Standard
43, Failure to Avoid Conflicts of Interest,” which provides:

Absent aggravating or mit circumstances, application of the factors set out i
Stnfrs 3.0 the flowing stone ae poncly moras ioe ee

Aicts of interest:
431 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the informed consent
of elient(s):

(©) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer's interests
are adverse tothe clients withthe intent to benefit the lawyer or another,
‘nd causes serous or potentially serious injury to the client; or

(©) simultaneously represents clients thatthe lawyer knows have adverse ine
‘erests with intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or
potentially serous injury toa client; or

(© represents a clint in a matter substantially related to a matter in which the
interests of a present or former client are materially adverse, and knowing.
|y uses information relating to the representation of a client with the intent
432

433

434

{to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious
so grea conflict
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows ofa conflict of interest
nd docs not fully diselose toa client the possible effet of that conflict, and caus-

¢ injury or potential injury to a client.

Reprimand (Le, “public censure” under Rule 9(4)(3), W.RDisc.P. is generally
appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining whether the representation
of a client may be matecially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether
the representation will adversely affect another client, and causes injury or poten-
tial injury toa client. :
Admonition (i, “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a}(4), W.RDisc-P] is gener-
re aca re ees hla eon of mates
‘determining whether the representation of a client may be materially affected
‘the lawyer's own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect an-
‘other client, and causes litte or no actual or potential injury to a client.

Respondent's violations of Rule 3.4(c) and Rule 8.4(d) implicate Standard 6.2,

‘which provides:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application ofthe

factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally

‘appropriate
in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious claim, or
failure to obey any obligation under the rules of the tribunal except for an open re-
fusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists:

621 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates
‘court order or a rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or
‘another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party or caus-
€s serious or potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding,

6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is
violating court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a
client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a le-

‘al proceeding,
623 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to
comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a
(emotes party, or anes intetrence or potential intereenc wih a
624 Admonition is generally eppropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated
instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule, and causes

little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual
‘or potential interference witha legal proceeding,

50. ABA Standard 9.0, entitled “Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as follows:
9.1 Generally
After misconduct has been

‘sggravating and mitigating cir-

‘established,
suces ay be consider in decding wha ston impos.

92

93

oat

922

931

932

Fepniton. Agra Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any consid-

cats oct tat may Justly en none in the degree of dai
10 be

actors which may be considered n aggravation, Aggrevatng factors

@ pi prior disciplinary offenses;

©) dishonest or selfish motive;

(© apatem of misconduct

@ multiple offenses;

(©) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentional-

restitution; and
W illegal conduc, including that involving the use of controlled sub-

‘Mitigation.
Definition. Mitigation or

‘mitigating circumstances are
tions or factors that
sons or tay justia redaction in he deice of dacpine

Factors which maybe considered in migation. Mitigntng factors in-

(9 absence of prior ciiptinry eon

(absence oft desea er eh ae

(© personal or emotional

(0 ily gd it te oa ein o 1 ey come
ences of misconduct,

(0 ll'nd ee dale of sipiary bout or cooperative atiude

(0) inexperience in the practice of law;
()charcter or reputation;

 

(h) physical
(mental silty o chemical dependency including sleoblim or
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent i affected by a

‘chemical dependency or mental
©) the stemical dependency or mental iailiy caused the mis
(G) the respondeat’s recovery from the chemical dependency or
mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sus-
tained period of successful rehabilitation; and

() the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that
misconduct is unlikely.
@) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
@ remorse; and
(Gm) remoteness of prior offenses.
94° Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
The following factors should not be considered as either aggravating nor
mitigating:
(@) forced or compelled restitution;
(©) agreeing othe clients demand for certain improper behavior or result;
(© withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer,
(@) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;
(©) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
(O filure of injured cient to complain,

‘Recommendations

In consideration of the Review Pane!’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the par-
ties’ Stipulation, and the facts and conditional admissions in the accompanying Affidavit, the

Board recommends the Wyoming Supreme Court issue an onder
1. Suspending Respondent from the practice of law for a period of 90 days.

2. Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fee of $750.00 and costs of $50.00

‘othe Wyoming State Bar within 10 days ofthe order of suspension.

3. Directing the Wyoming State Bar to issue the parties’ stipulated press release as,

set forth above.
are tis_/ yo ae, 200