Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Collin C. Hopkins, WSB # 6-4032

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 137
October Term, A.D. 2020
_November 6, 2020
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
20.0007

COLLIN C. HOPKINS, WSB #6-4032,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

[91] Thismatter came before the Court upon a*Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure,” fled herein October 19, 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 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 Collin C. Hopkins 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

[43] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Collin C. Hopkins 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;
[74] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Mr. Hopkins shall reimburse the Wyoming Siate 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. Hopkins shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Bar on of before December 1, 2020, If Mr. Hopkins fails to make payment in the time
allotted, execution may issue on the award; and itis further

[9.5] 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

[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

[47] ORDERED thatthe Clerk ofthis Court cause a copy ofthis Order of Public Censure
to be served upon Respondent Collin C. Hopkins.

[98] DATED this 4* day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
is)

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF WYOMING
D-20-0007
In the mater of ) (INTHE SUPREME cOURT
COLLIN C. HOPKINS, — DocketNo. 2020-045 STATE QF WYOMING
WSB No, 64032, > FILED
) oct 19
Respondent. d

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CEN!

‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Pane of te Board of Profesional Responsibility
via telephone conference call on the 15* day of October, 2020, for consideration ofthe partes’
Stipulation for Public Censure pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 ofthe Wyoming Rules of Dis
Procedure. Present onthe call were Review Panel members Christopher Hawks (Chat), John
Masterson and Janine Thompson. Mark W. Gifford, Bar Counsel, appeared on behalf ofthe
Wyoming State Ba, Respondent Colin C. Hopkins ppesred without counsel, The Review Pan-

 

Lhaving reviewed the Stipulation, the supporting Affidavit and being filly advised in the prem
ise, finds, conclues and recommends:
Findings of Fact

1. Respondent hasbeen licensed to practice in Wyoming since 2006 and maintains
an active practice of law in Riverton, Wyoming.

2, The above-captioned proceeding was initised upon Bar Counsel's receipt ofa r-
por from the Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Seventh Judicial District Court Judge, regarding
[Respondent's non-compliance with discovery orders in a medical malpractice casein which Re-
spondent represenied te plaints, Bar Counsel's investigation established clear and convincing
evidence ofthe following facts, to which the pats stipulate:
3. Respondent represented Richard Palmer, I, in « medical malpractice action
Other members of Mr. Palmer's family were named as pun as wel, albough it was Me
Palmer who was the recipient of allegedly negligent medical care. Respondent id no imely
comply with the inal disclosure requiements of Rule 16, W.R.

  

P. nor di he sere timely

responses to written discovery propounded by the defendants. The court granted a motion to
compel filed by defendants. Respondent fled to comply with the order compelling discovery
Defendants moved for sanctions including dismissal ofthe case and assessment of cost.

4. In response to defendants’ motion, Respondent acknowledged being negligent in
‘complying with discovery but claimed to be doing his best to provide the information sought by
‘the defendants. Respondent argued that the defendants already had in their possession much of
the information they sought and observed that he had cooperated withthe defense by making his
clients available for lengthy interviews by defense counsel and had provided signed authoriza-
tions 19 enable the defendants to obiain the information they sought. Respondent argued that the
‘noncompliance with discovery was not willful and should not be dealt with harshly.

5. Citing plaintiffs" multiple violations of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the
court's orders, judge Wilking granted the defense motion tothe extent of dismissing the claims
‘ofall plaintiffs except those of Mr. Palmer. Judge Wilking indicated that she would consider a
‘motion for sanctions seeking costs and atiomeys' fees associated withthe discovery delay.

6. Defense counsel submitted a motion requesting more than $23,000 for three de-
fense lawyers whose hourly rates were $415,00, $300.00 and $300.00, respectively. In response
to the motion, Respondent asked that any sanctions be levied against Respondent personally and
‘not agains his clients, Judge Wilking granted defendants’ mation in part and ordered Respond

‘ent 1 remit approximately $15,700 tothe defense firm.
7. Mr. Palmer contacted new counsel, with whom Respondent cooperated, and Re-
spondent subsequently withdrew from the case. Prior to new counsel entering his appearance,
counsel for the hospital contacted Respondent and offered to settle the matter, however, Mr.
Palmer wished to proceed only with new counsel. The plaintiffs were ultimately able, through
‘their new counsel, to negotiate a settlement acceptable to Mr. Palmer.

8. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Respond-
ent conditionally admits to violating Rule 3.4(c) (failure to comply withthe rules ofthe wibunal)

and Rule 3.4(4) (failure to comply with discovery) and Rule .4(4) (engaging in conduet prejui

 

cial to the administration of justice) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. As a miti-
tating factor, Respondent offers that he was experiencing significant health issues durin the rel-
‘vant time, Nonetheless, Respondent agrees thst a public censure is the appropriate sanction for
his misconduct inthis matter.

9. The Review Panel finds the following aggravating fectos: (1) substantial experi-
‘ence im the practice of law and (2) a pattem of misconduct. The Review Panel finds the follow-
ing mitigating factors: (1) absence of a prior disciplinary record; (2) absence of a dishonest oF
selfish motive; (3) full and free disclosure to Bar Counsel and a cooperative attitude toward pro-
czedings; (4) personal health issues during the relevant period; (5) imposition of other penalties
or sanctions; and (6) remorse.

10. The Review Pane! finds that a public censure is the appropriate sanction in this

11, Ifthe Court issues an Order of Public Censure in accordance herewith, Bar Coun-
sel and Respondent agree to the following press release:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order of public censure to River-
ton attorney Collin C. Hopkins. The public ceasure stemmed from Hopkins”
{allure to comply with discovery in representing a client ina medical malprac-
tice case. Hopkins failed to timely comply with discovery requirements in-
cluding an order compelling compliance. AS a result, the court assessed sanc~
tions against Hopkins in excess of $15,000 for the attorneys’ fees incurred by
the other side in seeking to enforce compliance with discovery. Hopkins stip-
ulated that his conduct constituted a violation of Rule 3.4) (failure to comply
with rules ofthe tribunal), Rule 3.4(4) (failure to cooperated with discovery)
and Rule 8.4(é) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the
‘Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. In approving the stipulation of
Hopkins and Bar Counsel for a public censure asthe appropriate sanction for
Hopkins’ misconduct and pursuant to the report and recommendation of a Re-
view Panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility the Court ordered
Hopkins t0 pay an administrative fee in the amount of $750.00 and costs of
'$50.00 to the Wyoming State Bar.

 

‘Conclusions of Law

12, Rule 3.4(¢), W.R-Prof-Cond, provides, “A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an
obligation under the rues of a tibunal except for an open refusal based on the assertion that no
valid obligation exists”

13. Rule 3.4(@), W.RProf.Cond., provides, “A lawyer shall. in pretrial procedure,
‘make a frivolous discovery request o fail to make reasonably ditigent efforts to comply with a
legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.”

14, Rule 84(d), W.R.ProfCond., provides,

 

“Wis profesional misconduct fora law-
yer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial othe administration of justice.”

15, Rule 15(6)3)(D), W.R.DP., provides, “In imposing a sanetion after a finding of
risconduct bythe respondent, the BPR shall consider the following factors, as enumerate inthe
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Santion:”

1, Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed toa client, to the publi, to
the egal system, or othe profession;

2. Whether the lawyer ated intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;

3. The amount ofthe atul or potential injury caused by the lawyer's mise
conduct: and

4. The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factor,
16. Fist Eacior: The Duy Violated, Respondem’s violations of Rules 3.4(¢) and
3.4(@) fall within the heading, “Violation of Duties Owed tothe Legal System.” ABA Standard
62, “Abuse ofthe Legal Process,” provides:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the fac-
tors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in
‘cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious claim, o fail-
ture to obey any obligation under the rues of the tribunal except for an open re-
fusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists:

621 _Disbament is generally appropiate when a lawyer knowingly violates a
court order or 8 rule with the intent 1 obsain a benefit fr the lawyer o
‘nother, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to party oF caus-
5 serious or potentially serous interference with a legal proceeding.

622 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he oF she is
violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to 2
client oF a party, or uses interference or potential interference with a le-
‘al proceeding.

623 Reprimand (ie, “pubic censure” under Rule 9()(3) ofthe Rules of Dis-
ciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently
fails to comply with a cour order or rule, and causes injury or potential in-
jury toa client or other party, or causes interference or potential interfer
nce with a legal proceeding.

624 Admonition [ve ‘private reprimand” under Rule 9(aX4) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in

solated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule,

‘and causes litle or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes litle

‘oro actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding.

 

 

   

 

 

17. Respondent's violation of Rule

 

(4) implicates Standard 6,1, “False Statements,
Fraud, and Misrepresentation,” which provides:

Absent aggravating oF mitigating circumstances, upon application of the fa-
tors set out in Standard 3.0 the following sanctions are generally appropriate in
cases that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or tht involves dshones-
ty, deceit or misrepresentation oa court

6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to de-
ceive the court, makes a false satement, submit a false document, or im-
‘properly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially
serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant
adverse effect on the legal proceeding.
6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false state-
ments or documents are being submitted to the court or that material in-
formation is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, and
‘causes injury or potential injury to party tothe legal proceeding, or caus-
esan adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.13 Reprimand [ie “public censure” under Rule (23) ofthe Roles of Dis-
ciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when
either in determining whether statements of documents are false oF in tak-
ing remedial action when material information is being withheld, and
‘causes injury of potential injury to a party tthe legal proceeding, or caus-
san adverse or potentially adverse eflet on the legal proceeding.

ition (i. “private reprimand” under Rule 9{aX4) ofthe Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an iso-
lated instance of neglet in determining whether submitted statements or
documents are false or in fling to disclose material information upon
Jeaming ofits falsity, and causes litle or no actual or potetial injury toa
party, of cause litle or no adverse potentially adverse effect on the legal
proceeding

18. Second Factor: The Lawver’s Mental State, The Preface 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 the lawyer acts with conscious awareness of the nature
‘or attendant circumstances of his or her conduct both without the conscious objec-
tive or purpose to accomplish a particular result. The least culpable mental state
is negligence, when a lawyer fails to be aware of a substantial risk that circum-
stances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation ofa care thet
‘a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.

19, ‘Third Factor: Actual or Potential Iniury, Under the ABA Standards, “injury”
defined as “harm to a clint, the publi, the legal system, or the profession which results from a

  

64

 

 

 

 

lawyer's misconduct. The level of injury can range from “serious” injury to “litle or no injury; a

reference 0“

 

jury’ alone indicates any level of injury greater than ‘litle or no" injury.” “Poten-
‘ial injury” is defined as “harm to e lient, 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.”
20. c Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. ABA Standard 9.0, enidled
“Aggravation and Mitigation,” provides as follows:

91 Generally
‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating c=
‘cumstances may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.
9.2 Aggravation
9.21. Definition. Aggrovation or aggravating circumstances are any consid-
erations or factors that may justify an increase inthe degree of
pline tobe imposed.
9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravaing ictors
include:
(@) prio dissplinary offenses;
(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
(6) a pater of misconduct;
(@) mukipi offenses;
(@) bad faith obstrction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentonal-
'y failing to comply with rules or orders ofthe disciplinary agency;
(© submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive
practices during the disciplinary process,
(g refnal acknowledge wrongh nur of conduct
(6) vuloerabiity ofthe view;
(substantial experience in the practice of law;
() indifference in making restitution; and
(illegal conduc, inluding that involving the use of controlled sub-
stances.
93 Mitigation
9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considera-
tons of factors that may jusify a redtion inthe degree of disipline
tobe imposed.
9.32 Fociors which may be considered in mitigation. Mitigating factors in-
clude:
(2) absence ofa prior disciplinary records
(@) absence ofa dishonest or selfish motive,
(6) personal or emotional problems;
(@) timely good faith effort to make resi
quences of misconduct;
(€) ill and ree disclosure of disciplinary board or cooperative atitude
toward proceedings;
(0 inexperience inthe practice of law;
(@) characte or reputation;
() physical disabiiy;

 

 

 

 

 

 

tion oF to rectify conse
() mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or
‘drug abuse when:
(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by
chemical dependency or mental disability;
(@) the chemical dependency of mental disability caused the mis-
conduct;
(G) the respondent's recavery from the chemical dependency or
‘mental disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sus-
tained period of successful rehabilitation; and
(A) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that
sisconduct is unlikely
) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
() remorse; and
(tn) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating nor Mitigating.
‘The following fectors should not be considered as either aggravating nor

  

 

 

(a) forced or compelled restitution;
(b) agreeing to the 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 o sanction; and

( failure of injured client to compl

 

 

 

of fact and conclusions of law, the Review

 

1, ‘That Respondent receive « public censure for violations of Rules 3.4(¢), 3.44)
and 8.4(4), W.R-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.

Dated this 19" day of October, 2020,
(Christopher H. Hawks, Chair
Review Panel of the Board of Professional

Responsibility
‘Wyoming State Bar