Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. John C. Hoard, WSB # 5-2000

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 83
April Term, A.D. 2020
June 24, 2020

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING

STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

1-20-0003

JOHN C. HOARD, WSB # 5-2000,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

[41] Thismatter came before the Court upon a “Report and Recommendation for Public
‘Censure,” filed herein June 2, 2020, 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 Cour, 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 approves ‘med and adopted by the Court, and that
Respondent John C. Hoard 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

[93] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that John C. Hoard 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 it is further
[4.4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Mr. Hoard 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. Hoard shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar on or before August 31, 2020. If Mr. Hoard 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 Onder of Publie 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

[46] 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

[417] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure
to be served upon Respondent John C, Hoard.

[48] DATED this 24% day of June, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
7]

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
"Giare Se Womne

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF WYOMING at
In the matter of )
JOHN C. HOARD, J Docket No. 2019-033
aN } D-20-0003
Respondent. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CENSURE

‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility
via telephone conference call on the 21 day of May, 2020, for consideration of the 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 Pane! members Christopher Hawks
(Chair), Katherine A. Strike and Carolyn Orr. Mark W. Gifford, Bar Counsel, appeared on be-
half of the Wyoming State Bar. Respondent John C. Hoard appeared without counsel, The Re-
‘view Panel having reviewed the Amended Stipulation, the supporting Amended Affidavit and
being fully advised in the premises, finds, concludes and recommends:

ind

1. Respondent has been licensed to practice in Wyoming since 1982 and maintains
‘an active practice of law in Casper, Wyoming.

2 The above-captioned proceeding was initisted upon Bar Counsel's receipt of a
‘complaint from SE, a former client of Respondent. Bar Counsel's investigation established clear
and convincing evidence ofthe following facts to which the parties stipulate:

8. SE hired Respondent in June 2017 for the purpose of filing a Chapter 7
bankruptcy. SE paid a retainer to Respondent. Intaly, filing ofthe bankruptey petition
was delayed because SE was diagnosed with a serious illness in the fall of 2017 and un-
erwent several months of medical treatment.

b. In ate April 2018, SE instructed Respondent to proceed with the filing of
‘8 Chapter 7 petition. Respondent did not timely comply with the client's direction. In
March 2019, frustrated over Respondent's lack of diligence in gettin the Chapter 7 peti-
tion filed, SE terminated Respondent's services.

 

‘SE retained new counsel. SE's new counsel informed her that she wes no
longer eligible for a Chapter 7 proceeding and would have to file a Chapter 13 petition
instead. The Chapter 13 plan obtained by SE's new counsel in September 2019 required
‘SE to make more than $44,000 in peyments to creditors. ‘These payments would not have
‘been required had Respondent filed a timely Chapter 7 petition. SE became income-

 

eto fle a Chapter 7 petition in January 2019.
3. Respondent conditionally admits, and the Review Panel so finds, that he violated
Rule 1.3 diligence) ofthe Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of SE.
4. The partes stipulate, and the Review Pane so finds, that Respondent's mental
state was negligence.

 

‘Respondent concedes, and the Review Panel so finds, that his failure to file a

timely Chapter 7 petition for SE resulted in financial harm to his client.

 

‘The parties agree, andthe Review Panel so finds, that aggravating factors include
(1) substantial experience in the practice of law and (2) vulnerability of the client. Mitigating
factors include: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence of dishonest or selfish
‘motive; and (3) fll and free disclosure to Bar Counsel and a cooperative atitude toward pro-
ceedings.
7. Respondent concedes, and the Review Panel so finds, that in consideration ofthe
foregoing factors, a public censure is the appropriate sanction forthe conduct to which Respond-
‘ent has conditionally admitted.

8. If the Court issues an Order of Public Censure in accordance herewith, Bar Coun-
sel and Respondent agree tothe following press release:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order of public censure to Casper
attomey John C. Hoard. The public censure stemmed from Hoard’s lack of
diligence in lent in a bankruptcy matter. The client became
frustrated with Hoard’s failure to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition though
the client had instructed Hoard to proceed with the bankruptcy many months
before. When the client obtained other counsel, the client learned that she hed
become income-ineligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy two months before
she terminated Hoard. The client's new counsel proceeded with a Chapter 13
petition instead. As a result, the client was required to make $44,000 in pay-
‘ments to creditors that would not have been necessary had Hoard filed a time-
ly Chapter 7 petition on the client's behalf. In approving the stipulation of
Hoard and Bar Counsel for a public censure as the appropriate sanction for
Hoard’s lack of diligence, the Court ordered Hoard to pay an administrative
{ee in the amount of $750.00 and costs of $50.00 to the Wyoming State Baz,

‘Conclusions of Law
9. Rule 1.3,, W.R.Prof.Cond,, provides, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable dili-

 

{Bence and promptness in representing a client.”

10, Rule 15(6){3XD), W.R.D-P., provides, “In imposing a sanction after a finding of
‘misconduct by the respondent, the BPR shall consider the following factors, 2s enumerated in the
‘ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.”

|. Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to
the legal system, 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 mis-
condiuet; and

4. The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
Fist Factor: The Duty Violated, Respondent's violation of Rule 1.3 calls into

play Standard 44, “Lack of Diligence,” ofthe ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

‘Standard 4.4 sets forth the following guidelines:

4at

442

443

444

12,

Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
(@) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially sei-
‘ous injury to acento
(&)a lawyer knowingly fils to perform services fora
tous or potentially serious injury toa client; or
(© a lawyer engages in a patter of neglect with respect to client matters
and causes serious or potentially serious injury toa client.
Suspension is generally appropriate when:
(@)a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes in-
jury or potential injury toa client, or
(a lawyer engages in a patter of neglect with respect to client matters
‘and causes injury or potential injury to a cient.
Reprimand [ie “public censure” under Rule 9(a)(3) ofthe Roles of Dis-
iplinary Procedure) is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent
tnd does not act with reasonable diligence in representing « client, and
causes injury or potential injury toa client.
‘Admionition [i.., “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a)(4) ofthe Rules of Discipli-
nary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not
‘act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes litle or no actual
‘or potential injury toa cient.

‘Second Factor: The Lawyer's Mental State, ‘The Preface to the ABA Standards

 

jent and cause se-

 

 

 

includes the following discussion regarding mental sate:

‘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 the lawyer acts with conscious awareness of the nature
of attendant circumstances of his or her conduct both without the conscious objec-

tive or purpose to accompli

 

particular result, The least culpable mental state

is negligence, when a lawyer fails to be aware of a substantial risk that cireum-

stances exist or that a result will follow, which failure

 

‘ deviation of a care that

a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.

1B.

‘hits Factor. Actual or Potential Injury, Under the ABA Standards, “injury” is

‘defined as “harm to a client, the publi, the legal system, or the profession which results from 2

lawyer's misconduct, The level of injury can range from ‘serious injury to ‘tle ono injury; 2
reference to ‘injury’ alone indicates any level of injury greater than ‘litle or no’ injury.” “Poten-
‘tial injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the publi, the legal system or the profession that is
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but for some interven-
ing factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct.”

14. Fourth Factor: Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, ABA Standard 9.0, entitled
“Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as follows:

9.1 Generally

‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating cir-
‘cumstances may be considered in deciding weal sanction to impose.
92 Aggravation

9.21 “Definition. Aggrevation or aggravating circumstances are any consid-
cations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of disci-
pline to be imposed.

922 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors
includ
(6) prior disciplinary offenses;

() dishonest or selfish motive;

() a patter of misconduct;

(@) mukiple offenses;

(©) bad iscipinary proceeding by intentional-
ly falling to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;

(0) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive
practices during the disciplinary process;

(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;

(h) vulnerability of the vieti

(substantial experience in the practice of law;

@) indifference in making restitution; and

(k) illegal conduc, including thet involving the use of controlled sub-
stances,

93 Mitigation.

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

932 Factors which maybe considered in mitigation. Migaing factor in
clude:

(a) absence ofa prior disciplinary record;

() absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;

(€) personal or emotional problems

(@ timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify conse-
quences of misconduct,

 

 

 

 
(6) fll and free disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings;

(inexperience in the practice of law;

(cance ep;

(8) physical

 

{metal dsblty or chemical dependeney locating seoolsm or
<drug abuse when:
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a
chemical dependency or mental disability;

 

conduct;
(G) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or
‘mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sus-
tained period of successful rehabilitation; and
(A) the recovery arested the misconduct and recurrence of that
‘misconduct is unlikely.
G) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(6) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
() remorse; and
(tn) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Miiigating.
‘The following factors should not be considered as either aggravating nor
mitigating:
(a) forced or compelled restitution;
(b) agreeing tothe client's 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 failure of injured client to complain.

Recommendation
In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Review
Panel recommends as follows:
1, That Respondent receive a public censure for violations of Rule 1.3,
WAR Prof.Cond.
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 to the Wyoming State Bar within 10 days of such order.
s
Dated tis | day of May, 2020,

ee
‘Christopher H. Hawks, Chair
Review Panel of the Board of Professional
Resposiilty

‘Wyoming State Bar