Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Todd H. Hambrick, WSB #6-2672

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 84
April Term, A.D. 2020
June 24, 2020 _
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
1-20-0004

v.
‘TODD H. HAMRICK, WSB #6-2672,

Respondent,

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE.

[{ 1] This matter 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 o Rule 12 ofthe 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 Todd H. Hambrick should be publicly censured for his conduct. It is,
therefore,

 

({2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibilty’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 iis further

 

 

[43] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Todd H. Hambrick 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

 
[f4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Mr, Hambrick 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. Hambrick shal pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar on or before August 31, 2020. If Mr. Hambrick fails to make payment in the time
allotted, execution may issue on the award; and itis further

  

[45] 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

[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

[17] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure
to be served upon Respondent Todd H. Hambrick.

[$8] DATED this 24% day of June, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
i
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT Keo
JUN 02 2029
STATE OF WYOMING ie é
Inthe mater of )
TODD H. HAMBRICK, d
WSB #6-2672, ) WSB No. 2020-024
d
Respondent, d

D-20-0004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CENSURE
THIS MATTER came before « Review Panel ofthe Board of Professional Responsibility

Vie telephone conference call on the 29" day of May, 2020, for consideration ofthe partis’

‘Stipulation for Public Censure pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary

Procedure. Preset on the cll were Review Panel members Debra Wendkland, Katherine Strike

and Alisha Rone. Mark W. Gifford, Bar Counsel, appeared on behalf of the Wyoming State Ber.

Donald Fuller appeared, as Counsel, on behalf of Respondent. ‘The Review Panel having re-

viewed the Stipulation, the supporting Affidavit and being filly advised in the premises, finds,

‘concludes and recommends as follows:

‘Bindings of Fact
1. Respondent is an clive member in good standing of the Wyoming State Bac,

‘mite to practice in 1993. Since his admission, Respondent es engaged inthe practice of

Jaw in Casper, Wyoming,

2 On the evening of June 22, 2019, Respondent was arrested in Grand Teton Ne-
ional Park snd cited with driving under the influence of elohol (DUI), The arresting oficer

‘measured Respondent's breath alcohol content (BAC) a 193, more than twice the legal limit of
.08. After pleading guilty to the charge, Respondent was sentenced on August 21, 2019, to one
year of unsupervised probation with the following conditions:
+ Shall not commit another federal, state, tba or local cxime
+ Shall not use or possess alcohol or enter any establishment whose primary source of in-
‘come derives from the sale ofeleobol
‘+ Shall continue treatment with an addiction therapist, and shall not terminate treatment

‘unless discharged by the therpist for successful completion of treatment. Beginning Oc-

tober 1, 2019, and at the beginning of each month thereafter, the defendant shall provide

the court with monthly treatment progress report,
Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $1,500.00 and court costs of $40.00,

3. On the late aftermoon of September 16,2019, Respondent was arrested after lnw
enforcement responded to «911 report of « drunk diver. The 911 caller reported spotting Re-
spondeat’s car driving the wrong way on East Second Stret,« busy Casper street, forcing on-
coming trafic to swerve out ofits wey. When police arrived, Respondent had already stopped
on the side ofthe road. Law enforcement measured Respondent's BAC at 18, more than twice
‘the legal limit. Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI.

4. Inresponse to press coverage of Respondent's arrestin Casper, Bar Counsel con-
tacted Respondent's designated surrogate attorney and suggested that Respondent voluntarily
‘submit to an evaluation by Wyoming Professional Assistance Program (WPAP). Respondent
‘complied with Bar Counsel's suggestion and entered into « Monitoring Agreement with WPAP
{in October 2019. The Monitoring Agreement required Respondent to provide random breath
samples several times each day via Soberink.
5. Following Respondent's DUI arrest in Casper, the United States Attomey filed a
‘motion fo revoke Respondeat’s probetion, However, the motion was put on hold pending Re-
spondent's sentencing inthe Casper arest

6 In eaily December, WPAP reported to Bar Counsel that Respondent's compli-
tance with the monitoring program had teen spotty, with several missed fests and two Tete
evening postive tests (#021 BAC at 10:46 p.m. on Friday, November 1, 2019, and #047 BAC
st 9:34 pam. on Monday, November 4, 2019). Also in December 2019, Respondents addiction
‘herapist recommended that Respondent wear an ankle monitor to monitor his sobriety coatiny-
ously, Respondent complied with his thereptt’s recommendation and in January 2020 trane-
‘toned from chemical testing with WPAP to using an ankle monitor.

7. On February 21, 2020, Respondent was sentenced on his Casper DU. He wes
‘sentenced to six months in jll with all but 15 days suspended end assessed $505.00 in court
‘costs and payment to the victim's compensation fund,

8. Following Respondent's sentencing forthe Casper DUI, the United States Attor-
‘ey withdrew the motion to revoke Respondent's probation for the Grand Teton National Park
DuL

9. On April 23, 2020, Respondent resumed random breath testing via Soberlink
through WPAP, He is also subject to random urine testing 12 times per year for the duration of
‘is Moritoring Agreement, which will not expire until April 1, 2023. All expenses associated
with the Monitoring Agreement are paid by Respondent. Respondent has acknowledged that
failure to abide by the Monitoring Agreement will be regarded es conduct that reflects adversely
‘on Respondents fitness ata lawryer and may result in further disciplinary proceedings.
10, ‘The Review Panel accepts Respondent's conditional admission that his conduct
in connection with the two DUI aress constitutes # violation of Rule 8.42) (eriminal conduct
that reflects adversely on lawyer's ftnes asa lawyer). The Review Panel agrees that such
‘conduct seriously adversely reflets on Respondeat’s Guess o practic.

11, The Review Panel finds that in Respondent's case the presumptive discipline, ab-
‘seat the application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is a suspension. However,
consideration ofthe aggravating and mitigating circumstances present inthis case weigh in favor
‘ofa pubic censure,

12, In Respondents case, aggravating factors include: (1) a pattem of misconduct; 2)
‘multiple offenses; and (3) illegal conduct. However, these aggravating fhctos must be weighed
guint the folowing mitigating factors:

Absence ofa prior disciplinary record;
, Timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct (.e, voluntarily

‘entering into Monitoring Agreemeat as Bar Counsel ;

Pull and fiee disclosure to Bar Counsel and a cooperative attitude toward pro-

4. ‘Recovery ftom alcohol dependency as demonstrated by a meaningful and sus-
tained period of sucessful rehabilitation; and

Imposition of other penalties and sanctions.

13, Respondent concedes tht, in consideration ofthe foregoing fhctors, a public cen-
‘rei the appropriate sanction forthe conduct to which Respondent has conditionally admited

 

‘The Review Pane! agrees and notes that Respondent's misconduct in this matter is similar in ma-
‘terial respects to that for which a public censure was issued in Bd. of Prof. Resp. v. Haderlle,
383 P34 260 (Wyo. 2015).

14, Ifthe Court issues an Order of Public Censure in socordance herewith, Bar Coun-
sel and Respondent have agreed upon the following press release:
‘The Wyoming Supreme Court today issued « public censure to
Casper layryer Todd H. Hambrick. In 2019, Hambrick had two
‘separate DUI arrests, onc in Grand Teton National Park and the
other in Casper. On both occasions, Hambrick had a breath alco-
‘hol content of more then twice the legal limit.

Following the Grand Teton National Park arrest, Hambrick un-
‘destook voluntary treatment with an nddiction therapist. Hambrick
Iter pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year of unsupervised
‘probation on the condition that he not use or possess alcohol or en-
fer any establishment whose primary source of income derives
from the sale of alcohol. Hambrick was ordered to continue
‘weatment with his addiction therapist,

‘Less than one month after his sentencing, Hambrick had enoth-
‘er DUL arrestin Casper, after which he voluntarily entered into a
‘two-year monitoring agreement with Wyoming Professional As-
sistance Program to monitor his sobriety at his sole expense, He
‘also continued in treatment with his addiction therapist For the
‘Casper DUI, Hambrick was sentenced to 15 days in jal and as-
sessed $505.00 in court costs and payment to the victim's com-
pensation fund.

In approving Hambrick’s stipulated motion for s public cen-
sure, a Review Panel of the Boerd of Professional Responsibility,
considered the nature of Hambrck’s misconduct, which violated
‘his duty to maintain personal integrity, and also considered appli-
cable aggravating and mitignting factors. Aggravating factors in-
cluded the presence of two DUIs to which he pleaded guilty. Mit
‘gating factors included the absence ofa prior disciplinary record;

timely good ith effort to retify consequences of misconduct;
full and free disclosure to Bar Counsel and # cooperative attitude

toward proceedings; recovery from alcohol dependency as demon-
strated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabili-
‘ation; and imposition of other penalties and sanctions.

‘The Review Pane! submited » report and recommendation for
«public censure of Hambrick to the Wyoming Supreme Court. In
‘accepting the Board's recommendation and issuing an Order of
Public Censure, the Court ordered Mr. Hambrick to pay an edmin-
istrative fee of $750 and costs of $50 to the Wyoming State Bar,
15,

‘Conelusions of Law
Rule 15(0)(3)(D), W.RDise-P, provides that in imposing a sanction for profes-

sional conduc, the Board of Professional Responsibility shell apply the ABA Standards for Im-
posing Lawyer Senctions (he “ABA Standards"), Pertinent to the present matter, it is necessary
‘to apply the ABA Standards relevant tothe duties violated by Respondent as well as aggravat-
ing and mitigating factors.

16.

Misconduct ofthe sort engaged in by Respondent, which essentially involves vio-

lation of duties owed tothe public, i addressed in Section 5,1, “Failure to Maintain Personal In-

tegrity.”

‘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 coramission of a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
‘nother respects, o in cases with conduct involving dishonesty, frau, de-
cet or misrepresentation:

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

() a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct, unecessary element
cof which inciudes intentional interference with th administration of jus-
tice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation,
‘or theft; or the ale, distibution or importation of controlled substances; or
‘the intentional killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicita-
tion of enother to commit ny ofthese offenses; or

(&)alawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dis-
honesty fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that seriously adversely re-
‘ects onthe lawyer's fitness to practice.

5.12 Suspension is generally appropcite when a lawyer knowingly engages in

‘ximinal 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 [i.e, "public censure” under Rule 9(a)3) ofthe Rules of Dise-

plinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly en-
‘gages in any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or mis-
fepeenatin that adversely ref on the enya’ eas to practice

5.14 Adonis, pve epenun under Ral 4K) of he Rl of

Disciplinary Procedure) is generally appropriate when ¢ lawyer engages in
tay ote condue at reflects adversely on he lawyer's ines to practice
17, ABA Standard 9.0 entitled “Aggravation and Mitigation,” pro-
vides as follows:

9.1 Generally
‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating end mitigating
circumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.
92 Aggravation
9:21 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considere-
‘tions or factors thet may justify an increase inthe degree of discipline to
be imposed.
9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors in-
clude:

(e) prior disciplinary offenses;
() dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) apattem of misconduct;
(@ multiple offenses; .
(©) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally fil-
ing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
(® submission of fale evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices
during the disciplinary process;
() refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(H) vuinersbility ofthe victim;
(substantial experience inthe practice of law;
) indifference in making restitution; and
(legal conde, ncluding tht involving the se of conlled substan,
Mitigation.
931 Deiter ‘Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations
‘or fctrs that may juny «reduction inthe degre of deli tobe in

9.32 Pastor which my be consdered in mitigation, Migungfctrin-

‘clude:

(4) absence of a prior disciplinary record;

(@) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive;

(©) personal or emotional problems;

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

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

(® inexperience inthe practice of law;

(@ characte or reputation;

(physi! disability,

mental cnbliy or chemical dependency fcuding lablim or dug
abuse
(1) there is medical evidence thatthe respondent is affected by chemical de-
‘pendency or ments disability;

(@ the chemical dependency or mental dsebility caused the misconduct;

(G) the respondeat’s recovery from the chemical dependency or mental disa-
bility is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of successful
rebabilitation; end

(@) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence ofthat misconduct is

unlikely.

@ delay in disciplinary proceedings;
imposition of other penalties o sanctions;
() remorse; and
(@) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
‘The following factors should not be considered as ether aggravat-
{ng nor mitigating:
(@) forced or compelled restitution;
(2) agreeing tothe client's demand for certain improper behavior or result;
(©) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer,
‘@ resignation prio to completion of disciplinary proceedings;
(© complainant's recommendation a o sanction; and
(0 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 8.4(t),
‘WRProfCond.

2. That, upon issuance of the order of public censure, the foregoing press release
‘nay 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 onder,