Title: Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Donald L. Tolin, WSB #5-1699

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2022 WY 1
October Term, A.D. 2021
Janwary 5, 2022
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner, |
| 1-20-0008

DONALD L. TOLIN, WSB #5-1699, |
Respondent.

ORDER OF THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION

[41] This matter came before the Court upon the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
Report and Recommendation for Three-Year Suspension, filed herein November 30, 2021

‘The Report and Recommendation was filed pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure, which govems stipulated discipline. Now, 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
Donald L. Tolin should be suspended from the practice of law for three years. It is,
therefore,

  

  

[92] ORDERED that Deputy Bar Counsel's Motion to Strike Page 7 of Report and
‘Recommendation for Three-Year Suspension in Its Entirety, e-filed herein December 3,
2021, is granted. The attached Report and Recommendation for Three-Year Suspension,
has been amended to include the corrected page 7 provided by Deputy Bar Counsel. In
addition, this Court has redacted a portion of page 4 of the Report and Recommendation;
and it is further

[$3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibilty’s
Report and Recommendation for Three-Year 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
 

[f4] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduct set forth in the
Report and Recommendation for Three-Year Suspension, Respondent Donald L. Tolin
shall be, and hereby is, suspended from the practice of law for three years, with the period
‘of suspension to begin January 5, 2022; and itis further

 

[45] 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. That rule govems the duties of disbarred and
suspended attorneys; and itis further

[96] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure, Respondent shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00,
‘which represents the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay an administrative
fee of $750.00. Respondent shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State
Baron or before March 1, 2022. If Respondent fails to make payment inthe time allotted,
‘execution may issue on the award; and itis further

[47] ORDERED that the Wyoming State Bar may issue the agreed press release
‘contained in the Report and Recommendation for Three-Year Suspension; and itis further

[98] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Three-Year
Suspension, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Three-Year
‘Suspension as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is
further

 

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

[910] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Three-Year
‘Suspension to be served upon Respondent Donald L. Tolin.

[11] DATED this 5 day of January, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
i]

KATE M. FOX
Chief Justice
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL “ona”
1 ns

WYOMING STATE BAR wo
Inthe matter of )
DONALD L. TOLIN )
WSB # 5-168, ? SB No.
)
Rapenie »_D-20-0008

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION

 

‘THIS MATTER came before a Review Panel ofthe Board of Professional Responsibility
vis video conference call on the 17° day of November 2021, for consideration of the partes’
Stipulation for Three-Year Suspension pursuant to Rules 9 and 12 of the Wyoming Rulles of
Disciplinary Procedure. Present on the call were Review Panel members Rob Jarosh, Janine
‘Thompson, and Deb Wenditland. Melinda S. McCorkle, Deputy Bar Counsel, appeared on bebalf
‘of the Wyoming State Bar. Respondent Donald L. Tolin appeared on his behalf. The Complainant
‘was also present during the video conference call. The Review Panel, having reviewed the
‘Stipulation, the supporting ASfidavit and being fully advised inthe premises, finds, concludes and

 

recommends:
EINDINGS

1. Respondent is a private practitioner with an office in Casper, Wyoming.

Respondent has been licensed to practice law in the State of Wyoming since 1978. On March 20,

2019, Respondent was suspended for thirty days for professional misconduct for violating

‘Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (diligence), 14 (communication with client), and

3.2 (expediting litigation). Bal of Prof Resp. v. Tolin, 436 P 3d 453 (Wyo. 2019). )
‘Representation of Complainant

2 On June 5, 2019, the Complainant (hereinafter “Wife") emailed Respandest
requesting legal advice about a possible separation or divorce from her husband. Within thet first

‘email to Respondent, Wife made clear that her overriding concem was that ber husband was
concealing assets and requested guidance in how to protect herself. Wife paid Respondest

$5,000.00 “availability retainer” on June 14, 2019.

3. OnJune 18,2019, Wife ent Respondent lengthy mil addressing concemnsabout

improper use of marital assets:

To date, (husband) has moved over approximately $23,000 from the joint
‘sccount to his LWSS (his business account). He has purchased a down payment on
Harley $3,500 (May) with which he plans to go through and purchase today,
despite the fact that Ihave told him that I did not agree with this or the manner in
which he has made this purchase. I finally found out thetotal purchase ofthe Harley
‘was $28,000. He put $3,5000 [sc] down already and now plans on putting another
$12,000 (approximately) down today. This will leave him about $11,500 for
financing. [am tellingyou this asI feel this large purehase's taking away from
the marital property behind my backand I would like this to be accounted for
in the event a divorce transpires. If am remembering correctly, you said he
will be held accountable for these transactions.

 

‘Can you provide me clarity with this question?

‘Also, with the $23,000 moved ffom the joint account to his business
sccount, he has also “loaned” approximately $7,000 to a "frend whose child isin
need"77?? (Despite the fact his own child has been diagnosed with a lifelong,
illness). Very vague and I am totally questioning this too. Once again, taking away
‘rom the marital property and giving to someone or something ese. (stil suspect
' pomography addition or he is seeing someone else). Nonetheles, I think he is
hiding money at this time and would like a very CLEAR accounting of these
transactions. I plan on digging further, but fl this is information that you need to
koow.

‘Asof Sunday, Ihave asked him tobe transparent with this business account
‘While he bas not provided me with an updated register, I have not seen anything
suspicious to date I wil let you know if I do.

He informed me today that he is selling the jet skies toa friend for $5,000,
|Lasked where be plans on putting the money from this sale, he said he was going

2
to give it to me. 1 asked that be deposits the money into the joint savings account
and we will decide later after we have decided the direction we need to go with this
marriage. This is my way of being transparent and following what is equitably
distributed in the event ofa divorce.

‘As of Sunday, June 16, 2019, I have asked him to include me in on ALL.
<ecisions with the finaaces. He isnoto sell, purchase, and/or move money without
my knowledge and/or approval. He has been informed and he verbally agreed. Lf
he does not hold up on his end of the deal, he is aware that there will be an
accounting on his end.

(emphasis added).

4. In Respondent's response to Wife's email, Respondent acknowledged Wit

cconceras about assets and stated, “I'm sill concerned about his access to your accounts.”

 

5. On June 18, June 26, July 5, and July 11, 2019, Wife reiterated concerns about

hiding assets. On July 15, 2019,

 

if agnin addressed assets and inquired about securing marital
assets:

My question i will there need{s] to be an official separation date in an effort to get
‘my portion of what he has already taken from the marital property?

1 have had several people tell me I will not be able to recoup what he bas
taken/sold/spentto date as nobody has filed forthe divorce, and a divorce complaint
needs to be filed to freeze current assets. I would much rather get legal advice from
you as know this is accurate If you can please provide clarity to my questions, 1
‘ill be able to decide how bes to move forward.

 

6 Respondent advised Wife tat filing a complaint for divorce “sooner rather than
late is beter and thatthe propery issues are “complicated”.

7. Wife spoke with Respondent on September 19, 2019 regang concerns sbout
assets, Wife asserts Respondent told here would flea motionto fee asstsand take temporary
comership of the marl home upon fing ofthe divorce. On October 4, 2019, Wie emailed
Respondent regarding tbe saleof asses. Respondest didnot respond to this email
8. Wife was served divorce papers on Saturday, April 4, 2020. That day, Wife gave
Respondent a copy of the Complaint for Divorce and coramunicated in writing that her primary
‘concer was the reduction of assets. Wife requested a full accounting of her husband's assets.

9. On April 8, 2020, Wife filed out a “Confidential Client Information” form, again
stating: “I would like a full financial accounting with money he has been hiding since March
2019." In that document, Wife repeatedly expressed concems about her husband’s “increased
spending” and “moving assets”. On April 9, 2020, Respondent asked Wife whether she and her
Ihushand had reached an agreement about the division of property and debt, to which Wife replied
inthe negative. Respondent replied:

Getting the answers youve asking about, would not happen in a Stipulated

Divorce. Most divorces are never just “stipulated” at the beginning. However, if

they ean not [sic] be resolved between the parties after discovery and mediation,
then they are set for a bench trial before the judge, which ustally lasts.a day.

 

For some reason, it appears to me that (Husband) thinks you will just
agree to whatever he tells" you, hence s “stipulated divorce I bear this often
from clients spouses .. "we dont need to get the attomey’s [sic] involved" from
the cases where the atiomeys really need to be involved because of major
issues regarding the division of property and debi, and the attempt af
‘overpowering and manipulation bythe spouse of my client.

10, Within the April 9 emai string, Wife again expressed her far that her husbaad
‘was hiding assets, stating, “I am hoping through discovery that what he has spent his money that
hhas been hiddea willbe brought out inthe open.” She further stated:

‘This is where am going to hand it overto you for legal guidance. 1am requesting

4 full accounting of his assets, bank atcoun's, eredit cards, LSS bank account,

‘Veamo and Zelle accounts (maybe more I am unsure) and amazon account as |

believe the amazon account chargts may shed sore light on his behaviors as well.
(cmphasis added).

11, On April9, 2020, Respondent provided Wit
‘begin working on het inital disclosures. Respondent advised that the inital disclosures are “part

 

with standard forms s that she could

4
ofthe automatic discovery required in every divorce” and “more formal discovery” can commence
afte disclosures are exchanged. Respondent confirmed that inital disclosures are usually due
thirty days after the counterclsim and answer are served but extensions may be granted as a matter
of course.

12, On April 21, 2020, Wife notified Respondent shout suspicious charges, concerns
that her husband was attempting to open an account, and other concems regarding her husband's
‘misuse of marital assets. Wife asked about information needed for her counterclaim, stating:

I guess this is where my thoughts are with what I understood our conversation to

be last September. I would like your professional input and recommendations at

‘his time a this is outside of the scope of my knowledge.

{ally need you know that Iam trying tet you take over and guide me through
this process as Ihave never gone through divorce.

13, On Apsil 22, 2020, Wife reiterated the importance of discovering “spending
paterns" as she believed her husband had engaged in “indiscretions” with their finances.

14 On Apil 29, 2020, Wife seat Respondent an email inquiring. about the
recommendations he previously made about ling mations to feeze assets and for temporary
‘ownership ofthe marital property. Respondent didnot provide a substantive response or take any
action on Wife's request.

15, On May 13, 2020, Wife again reiterated that she believed her husband had spent
‘more marital asets and wanted to speak wit him about such discoveries but was focusedon inital
Aiselosures because they were due the following week.

16, OnMay 19,2020, Wife contacted Respondent to express concem sbout completing
Initial disclosures by the May 23 due date. Respondent told Wife to do the best she could, He did

‘not indicate thatthe disclosure deadline was extended.
17. On May 22, 2020, Wife provided Respondent with her initial disclosure document
‘and supporting documents and asked whether Respondent had received her husbend’s disclosures.
(On May 23, 2020, Wife asked whether her husband was required to produce i
‘within thitty days ofthe Answer. Respondent replied that he had not yet received disclosures and

il disclosures

 

affirmed that her husband was under the same time constraints.

18. On May 27, 2020, Wife emailed Respondent requesting a meeting to discuss
several concems about misuse of marital assets and alleged that her husband had transferred
$100,000.00 into a separate bank account. Wife ended the email stating: “We need to freeze all
the assets to include the new bank account of $100,000 associated with his mother.” She again
inquired about her husband's initial disclosures. Respondent responded that be has “heard nothing
farther from {husband's} atiorney”. The folowing day, Wife asked whether Respondent had
provided her intial disclosures to opposing counsel. Respondent replied, “I have not.” On May
29, 2020, Wie again inquired into the statis of her husband's initial disclosures, complaining that
he should have to timely provide disclosures. Respondent didnot answer Wife's inquiry about the
status of her husband's disclosures.

19. On June 5, 2020, Wife agsin asked whether Respondent had received any
documents or information from Husband's aiomey. Respondest replied, “Nothing new to
report”! These emails were contained within the same inital thread asking Respondent to freeze
assets, At no time did Respondent respond to Wife's request fora meeting, coneeers about ase,
lor request to freeze assets,

20. On,hune 16, 2020, Respondent emailed Wife o inform her that Husband’sattomey

filed a request for rial. Tat éay, Respondent and Wife spoke for approximately 30 minutes.

 

"Respondent charged $20.00 foreach of tes malls tou of $40.00 fr these seven words,
6
21. The District Court required mediation to occur prior to setting atrial date. On June
17, 2020, Wife requested a delay in mediation, stating:

[Als previously discussed, I would like the discovery to be completed as I believe
ee ee eee conto
(conphasis added),

22. On June 18, 2020, Wife inquired about meeting with Respondent before he
produced initial disclosures to Husband's attomey. Respondent replied that he would assemble
‘Wife's initial disclosures, after which, they would meet.

‘23. Respondent had no further communication with Wife regarding initial disclosures
until August 10,2020,

‘24, — Husband and Wife were ordered to complete mediation before proceeding to trial.
Between July 2 and August 10, 2020, the mediator’s office proposed tweaty-cight possible
mediation dates spanning from August 25 through October 30, 2020. Respondent did not
‘communicate with Wife about any proposed dates or notify her that a mediator was sslected until
‘Augest 10.

25. Imresponse to Respondent's May 10,2020, email regending mediation, Wife stated:

tive pevluy osedT m nwlag oes metaon a wou 36

Parade a oom Dhahtunevceny nn meine Hive you caved

1 want to go into medication {sic} prepared and not be scrambling for his

information during limited time during mediation. Also, | do want you preseat

during medision end {do nt feel comfortable witha zoom mediation.

26. Wife slsoexpressedconcems about potestial conflict with the mediator asd asked
‘wher a trial date had ben set. Respondent responded, “Court dates ae not set until court has
‘been notified that mediaion was not successful. Nothing further has been received from his

7
atomey's office” He also inquired lato the perceived conflict with the mediator. Wife again
asked, “I would ike to know what your next move is withthe intial disclosure and discovery.”
Respondent didnot respond t Wifes inquiry and had no further communication with Wife until
she tenninated his representation on August 18, 2020,

27. On August 18, 2020, Wife diected Respondent to: (1) transfer her entire file,
including all emails, to new counsel; (2) file a motion to withdraw; and (3) provide an invoice
{identifying the services performed so thatthe remaining fee may be refunded. Respondent di not
respond to Wife's request.

28, On August 24 and August 25, Wif's new attomey requested an update from
Respondent about Wife's requests. Wife reiterated,“ am sending you a second request to forward
‘my complete file to (counsel's) office, Please do sono later than Friday, August 28, 2020, Ifyou

 

are unable to meet this deadline please reach out to [Wife's new counsel]

29. On August 26, Wife's attorney asked again about the retum of a portion of the
‘uneamed $5,000.00 paid by Wife. Respondent did not respond.

30. On August 31,2020, Respondent spoke withthe mediator even though he had been
terminated on August 18, 2020 and was no longer authorized to speak on Wife's behalf

31. On September 3, 2020, Respondent informed Wife, “I was finally able to talk to
the assigned mediator (]as [told you I would, and she is now aware of your concer thata conflict

 

exists between you and her; [sic] and that she should not be mediating your divorce case.”
Respondent attached a copy of the Representation Agreement to that emi

32. Despite Wife's repeated directives to exchange initial disclosures and conmmence
discovery, Respondent never did so. Despite expressing fears since June 5, 2019, that her husband
‘was hiding assets and demanding a fall counting since June 16, 2019, Respondent never
requested an accounting from Wife's husband.
33. Upon receipt of Wife's Complaint, Deputy Bar Counsel asked whether Respondent
‘exchanged initial disclosures with Husband's atiomey. Respondent replied:
Thad not yet exchanged Defendant's Rule 26 Initial Disclosures with opposing
‘counsel. Opposing counsel had not yet provided Plaintif's Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures to me. I understood that (Wife) was still working on finalizing her
Defendant's Rule 26 Initial Disclosure information to me, as she continued to
provide me with updates and addtional supporting documents.

ial disclosures were not being exchanged

 

 

34, Respondent never informed Wife that
because he was waiting for additional documents from her.

 

is clearthat he delay was not based
‘pon a ak of documents or information
35, Accordingly, while intial disclosures were due on or about May 22, 2020,
Respondent made no effort to abide by his cen clear directives to exchange disclosures and
commence discovery. He continued o represen! Wie for nearly three months past the disclosure
deadline.
Interastons with Opposing Counss}

36. On June 16, 2020, Respondent notified Wife that a Cour-ordered mediation was

 

Pending. On July 2, 2020, the mediator contacted the parties to schedule the mediation,
Respondent replied on July 8, 2020, stating thet he was not available on any ofthe five proposed
dates. The same day, nine additional dates were proposed by the mediator and Husbaad’sattomey.
Respondent did not respond.

37. OnJuly 21, 2020, the mediators office requested a reqponse from Respondent. On

July 22, 2020, Respondent responded to the mediator, but did not include Husbands attorney, as
follows, “Our schedules are in fux. We should have a better feel for everything by the end ofthis
week. Somy”

38. On July 24, 2020, Husband atiomey’s paralegal emailed Respondent about
‘mediation dats, © which Respondent replied that he was reviewing th dates and would respond

 

aes.
39. On July 28, 2020, the medixior again requested a response from Respondent.
Respondent asertd tht he was not available
40. Themediaorsubsequetly proposed sx new dates, Opposing couse responded

the same day, stati

 

All of the proposed October dates work for [Husband's attomey]-

Don: Is everything olay? Are you out of town or scheduled to be out of town in
‘August and September? As of right now we are looking at scheduling mediation
{in this ease into almost November, which is 4+ months from the June 17, 2020
Order requiring mediation. Do you not have ANY dates in August or
September that would work? [Husband's attomey] is willing to reamange his
schedule if he can, to try to accommodate you. I know you ean attend mediation
via phone or skype if needed??? hope everything is okay? .

(emphasis added). Respondent did not respond.
41. On August 10, 2020, the mediator proposed eight additional dates, noting ahat the

 

 

 

 

  

parties could appear in person, via 200m, or via phone, stating, “I am following up because I really
need to get this mediation set.”

42. Respondent forwarded this emailto Wife, at which time he leased about a potential
‘conflict with the mediator.

43. Respondent did not contact Wife about the mediator or mediation dts grior to

‘August 10. Consequently, after six weeks of attempting to schedule a mediation, Respondest

10
Sally learned ofthe potential confit and contacted the medisor, tating, “just have to resolve
‘an issue with her that has just come up, before we look at scheduling this particular mediation.”

44. OnAugust 26,2020, opposing cousselemuiled the mediator and Respondent about
the proposed dates:

Just fllowing up.

[Husband's attorney] says if we don't have communication from Mr. Tolin by the

tend af this week, on Monday be willbe ling a Motion for the Court to Wave the

Mediation Requirement and Set a Trial in this matter. This mediation was Ordered

‘on June 17,2020 which is more tan two months ago.

45. On August 27,2020, the mediator responded that she was sil waiting for pending
dates to be approved by Respondent. Respondent had not notified the mediator or opposing
‘counsel that is representation terminated on August 18, 2020, Respondent did not regpond to
these emails.

46. On August 31, 2020, Respondent verbally informed the mediator that he wes no
longer counsel for Wife but hd not yet received an Order fom the Court granting withdraws.

47. On September 12,2020, Respondent notified the mediator and Husband's attorney

incl that he had been granted leave to withdraw ffom the case.
‘Respondent's Billing Practices and Failure to Provide invoice to Wife

48, Respondent received Wiles $5,000.00 “availablity etaine” on June 14,2019, On
August 18, 2020, Wife terminated Respondent's representation. Respondent never generated or
sent an invoice to Wife during this fourteen-month spa.

49. On August 18, 25, and 26, 2020, Witt requested an invoice identifying the services
performed so that the remaining fee could be refunded to pay for newly-retained counsel.
Respondent did not respond to the requests for an invoice. On September 3, 2020, Respondest
simply sent Wife copy ofthe Representation Agreement
50, When Wife fled the Complaint on September 17, 2020, she sill had not received
‘an invoice detailing the services performed.
SI. Section 3.A of Respondent's Representation Agreement states:

AVAILABILITY RETAINER: The CLIENT agrees to pay the FIRM an
availability retainer of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) all of which
is fully earned upon receipt and may be deposited direcly into the FIRM's operating
‘bank account whon received from the CLIENT. This amount once fully paid by the
CLIENT, is non-refundable, and will not be placed inthe FIRM’S IOLTA Lawyers
‘Trust Fund Bank Account. The CLIENT understands and agrees that this FIVE,
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) availablity retainer represents the
‘minimum fee that will be charged by the FIRM for the representation of the
CLIENT by the ATTORNEY in the matters more fully described in paragraph 1.A.
above. This availablity retainer represents the FIRM's agreement to make the
ATTORNEY available for representation of the CLIENT with the understanding
that other work which could have been taken on by the FIRM, has been and wil
continue to be declined in order to appropriately address the CLIENT matters,
described in paragraph 1.A. above. In other words, while the ATTORNEY is
spending his limited time working on the CLIENT case, he is unable to spend that
‘same time working on other eases that would otherwise generate the same or more
revenue to the FIRM and the ATTORNEY from other paying clients. This

lability retainer gives the CLIENT reasonable access to ATTORNEY at
‘reasonable times.

 

 

 

 

 

Section 3.C states:

EXCESS TIME AND COSTS; If the actual time expended by the ATTORNEY
times the standard rate of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per hour plus COSTS
‘exceeds the amount ofthe avalability retainer pai tothe frm by the CLIENT, the
CLIENT agrees to pay the balance tothe FIRM upon receipt ofthe billinvoice by
the CLIENT. Invoices may be sent on a monthly oF less frequent bai, but a due
in fll on receipt, regardless of when received. The CLIENT agrees 10 pay
‘ditional availability retainers, should the amount bilable exceed the otal amount
pid by CLIENT for fes and costs, in the sole discretion of the ATTORNEY andlor
FIRM, Work done for CLIENT prior to the execution ofthis Agreement will be
compensated for atthe standard rate of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per hour plus
‘COSTS. The FIRM will bill ll reasonable time expended by the ATTORNEY in
increments of -10 of an hous, a5 in the ATTORNEY'S sole discreson and
professional judgement, is necessary for the representation of the CLIENT in the
above stated mars.

52. In summary, $5,000.00 was the minimum fee and once earned, Respondest was
‘entitled to receive an additional $200.00/hour. To determine whether the $5000.00 had been

2
exhausted end addtional amounts owed, Respondent necessarily had to keep time records
<alulating his hours atthe rate of $200.00/hour.

53. On October 1, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel asked Respondent to provide his time
‘eeping entries and/or invoices by October 16,2020, Respondent dd not provide his time keeping
cnvies until January 15, 2021, He repeatedly acknowledged that the time enties were not
complete.

$4. —Thetime entries finaly provided by Respondent consist of 28-lin items, the vast
texts, voicemalls, telephone calls, and emails
received. Every item i separated, even when multiple texts, emails or voicemails occured onthe

majority of which are individually identi

 

sume day. Each individual item is charged ata minimum .10 of an bour ($20.00). The total number
‘of hours expended according to Respondent was 51,90 hours.

55. Because the time compilation did not reflect the fees that were or would have been
charged to Wife, Deputy Bar Counsel asked Respondent to provide the invoice he would have
provided to Wife. Upon providing that document, Respondent stated:

‘56. Respondent later asserted he had actually “no charged” 26,80 hours and thus wrote
(off $5,380.00 out of the $10,380.00 owed:

Please consider that I have not billed {Wife] for any amount above the $5,000
availability retainer she paid to me, nor have I billed her for any costs

‘Asa recap, the billing document shows 31.60 hours billed at $200.00 per hour ora
{otal amount for fees of $6,320.00 plus costs of 1,060 copies at $.15 per copy or
'$159,00, plus ctual postage costs of $38.60. The Total Billing is $6,517.60.

This billing includes 2030 hours at $200.00 per hour that is shown as “NO
CHARGE" ora total of $4,060.00 in fees not charges tothe client in this billing.
‘The total time expended forthe representation from the time compilation provided
to you last week was 51.90 hours. 20:30 No Charge hours plus 31,60 billed hours
‘equals the total of $1.90 hours, whichis the same amount as shown on the time
‘compilation provided last week.

 

B
57. Atno pont did Respondent communicate with Wife about he remsining amount
ofthe svsilability retainer ortll Wife when the retainer had been exhausted

58, Despite Wife's requests, Respondent never provided her with an invoice.

59. Wife finally ecive a copy af the invoice when Deputy Bar Counsel peseted it
tober on January 22,2021.

0. Wife identified numerous time ents with which she disagreed. Among other
‘hings, Wife disputed charges relate to text messages and emi:

Line 66-75: April 6, 2020. Text messages that totaled $100 and mostly centered
around the fact that he was curently in Tx and under a "statewide say at home/n0
travel order", We talked a lot about Covid. One text message was about how he is
conducting his business in Texas (appreciated) and other text about casuel
information pertaining to family. Once again, had I known I would had been
‘charged $20 per text message to be "chummy", I would have elected out of this
option.

Line 196: 6/5/20. Another email I sent to Don, inquiring if Don had heast from
Husband's atiomey/ Initial Disclosure. His response, nothing new to report”. was
charged $20 for this.

61. In response to Wife's objections, Respondent stated:

Ten text messages, but billed for only five text messages that were seat, "NO
CHARGE (sic) for text messages sent by [Wife] to me. The minimum time

arged for the outgoing text messagesis.10 per hour each which isastandard
law office billing practice. Overall, $4,060.00 of fees were shown as "NO
CHARGE" and $1,517.60 above the $5,000.00 paid availability retainer has not
been billed to Ms, Wife. A total of $5,577.60 of legal fees and cost isnot being
billed to (Wife), and have been writen off

   

Line 196 is an email on 6/5/20 at 5:04 PM from [Wife] with a "NO CHARGE” for
Read snd Review email fom Client. Line 197 san emall response writen to Ms.
Wife on 6/5/20 at 7:16PM to Ms. Wife with the standard minimum tie charge
of 10 10 x $200 per hour equals $26.00). This was fully explained to [Wife] st
Ue time she signed the Legal Services Fee Agreement, andi detailed in the writen
Legal Services Fee Agreement

(emphasis added).

 

4
a.

Respondent repeatedly charged $20.00 a piece for texts and emails containing litle

information or containing information unrelated to legal issues, such as information about his

‘grandchild. Many ofthe texts and emails occurred on the same day, reslting in multiple charges

{for individual texts and emails even though the sum ofthe time spent respanding tothe emails or

texts could not have been more than the amount billed for sending just one response.

63. Respondent also charged separately for listening to voicemails even when he
‘performed other services the same day, such as speaking with the client ater billing her separately

($20.00) for listening tothe voicemail, On June 19, 2019, Respondent charged$S80.00 for listening

0.2 voicemail (line 19), sending two text messages stating: “So my $4000 ea plus $2000 trailer,

‘Quess was not too fa of” and “Welcome” (lines 22,27), and sending an email sting: “Thanks. Yes,

Took st the back to see if they signed offon the tile. but he has not obeained anew tile,” Respondent

‘didnot send the email referenced and charged inline 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘separately charging $20.00 foreach item:

15

(3 Co Ez [Review Voicemail Message from Client Gio] $20.00]
3
3] Ba | ae aa Pie aoa oa is
al
Sa] TOO dT ea To CST aa] —
[a] "9 uaa
SY aio] dT ge SCRE aay tay
a
3) WT 1056 io Tet ee fom er 735] 70)
33 cunt
sea RT
_[otgn [2 fresno REE wa eal
ogo

2] 06/19/1 | 10:37 [Read and Review Email from Client [With 2 attachment (2 paged) | 0.10] nd]
3 5 couse
Soa [TE | a at tr ak aay
als
I ‘06/19/1 | 12:44 |Send Text Message to Glent Da] $2000)
Ales

4. On Api 4, 2020, Responiet charged S400 forthe folowing serves by
‘+ Reviewing a voicemail;

 

‘© Sending the following texts:

‘© *{Wife}: Received your message. Can you please Sean and email me the paperwork
you were served toduy.”

© Welcome. Don’t stress.”

(©. “Received. Thanks. I'l review and get back to you."

‘The same day, he charged $240.00 for other legal services.

6s

‘The text messages expressly complained about by Wife deat primarily with

[Respondent's family and logistics because Respondent was out of town:
66. Wife was charged $100.00 for the preceding texts and an additional $20.00 for

listening to her voicemail that day.

Respondent: I did get both of your emails with questions. I will respond to
‘each. Iam notable to meet with you in person today. We are still in San Antonio
under a local stay at hore/ne teavel order, and now a statewide Texas order.
($20.00

Respondent: No problem. I just didn't want you to give up a patent slot. We
‘came down for Spring break on March 9, they exiended it a week, and then
‘cancelled schools until Apel 3. Now till May 4. Frontier cancelled aur flight
‘fom Texas to Deaver. Don't worry, we have our computers with us, We alsa
hhave monitors and printer:seanner here at our sons house. All 4 of us have been
‘working remotely ffom “home” ($20.00)

Respondent: I did a federal criminal case last week by FaceTime. I was here
{in Texas, my client from jail in Wheatland, US attomey from Lander, probation
Olficer fiom Cheyenne, and Judge in Casper. ($20.00)

 

 

Respondent: At least we are with our Son and his family, especially our 4
grandkids. Our premle 2 pounder grandson tured 6 yesterday. 43 pounds and
45 inches tall Also been dealing with many client crisis daily because of
‘COVID-19. Our youngest son is only I hour away with his wife and 2 kids but
not been able to visit since local stay at home order frst in San Antonio and
next in Austin, Talk daily to our oldest daughter in Casper. Tough for all.
($20.00)

Respondent: Agreed. ($20.00)
67. Respondent also billed for cleica/secetaral tasks such as preparation of
‘ransmitalleters, sending faxes, and calls tothe clark of court. Respondent charged $80.00 for
rafting two transmittal letters to the clerk of court, $80.00 total fr calling the clesk of court on
four separate occasions, and $40.00 for sending two facsimiles. Some of these charges occurred
‘onthe same day.

68. On April 22,2020, Respondent charged Wife $20.00 for making a phone cll tthe
‘lek of court seeking permission to fax a document, $20.00 for sending the fax to the clerk of
court, $20.00 fr calling the clerk of court to verify the fax was received, and$40,00t0"draftand
revise” a transmital letter to the clerk of cour to facilitate the fax filing, The tansmital letter is
«form letter. With the exception of the dste and name of the document filed, the April 22, 2020,
transmittal letter is identical tothe April7, 2020, transmittal letter, yet Respondent charged a total
(0f'$80.00 to “draft and revise” these letter.

i Co of Bar Cs

69. On October 1, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel sent « copy of Wife's Complaint to
Respondent with alter requesting a response tothe Complaint by October 16,2020. The letter
expressly requested “a copy of your entire file on the matter, including but not limited toall emails
and all-time [sc] entries andlor invoices”

70. On October 16, 2020, Respondent responded tothe Complaint but did not provide
time entries or invoices. In his response, Respondent acknowledged that he did not provide time
entes or invoices but indicated that he was “sll working on” compiling the information and
‘would “provide that as soon as itis completed.”

2 The net day, Respondent charged anata $20.0 fr sending the same esi to epposng counsel
”
71. On October 20, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel requested, via email, that Respondent
provide a detailedtime compitation by October 30,2020. Respondent assured Deputy Bar Counsel
that he “hafs] been working on it”

72. On October 30, 2020, at 4:59 pm, Respondent, via email stated that he had not
yet compiled the time,

73. OnOctober 31,2020, Deputy Bar Counsel requested the information by November
6, 2020, and informed Respondent that documents responsive to the Complaint would not be
reviewed until he provided the time compilation. In response, Respondent stated, “I will try my

best”

 

74, Nothing further was heard from Respondent,

75. On November 17, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel contacted Respondent via email,

 

 

On October 1, 2020, I requested a response to [Wife's] complaint by October
16. On October 16, you drove to Cheyenne to provie a large group of documents
hich gid not contain a response to my request forall ime entries. Rather, you
stated that you were still working on your “detailed time compilation and will
provide it as soon as itis completed". On October 20, I requested the time enties
by October 30, to which you replied that you had been “working ont”. On October
30, you stated you had not ye finished compiling your time but would provide tto
ime as 8000 as its finished. informed you that Iwill ot review aay of your
‘materials until Ihave the compilation and asked you to provide it by November
& You responded that you will try. Ihave head nothing since that date

 

I require the time compilation by November 30, 2020. If't is not provided by that
date, I will ile a formal charge that includes a violation Rule 8.1(6).

76. Respondent did not respond to this email

77. On December 22, 2020, Deputy Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Immediate
‘Suspension of Attorney (“Petition”) inthe Wyoming Supreme Court (“Court”) pursuast to Rule
17643), WRDiseP.

18
78. In Respondent's Answer fo Petition for Inmediate Suspension of Attorney,
Respondent complained:

4, Deputy Bar Counsel advised Respondent that ithe did nat provide the time

‘compilation by the end of November, Deputy Bar Counsel would file a formal

charge. Respondent understood that he would have to answer tothe formal charge

and subsequent proceedings, but Deputy Bar Counsel never mentioned that she

‘would seek an immediate suspension, if she did not receive the time compilation.

5. Respondent filly intends to provide Deputy Bar Counsel with a complete time

‘compilation, once itis completed, as he has continally advised hee. However,

‘unforseen [sic] computer hardware and sofware problems, unstable Internet and cell

‘phone service have complicated the time compilation process in addition to issues

‘resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, current client representations and client's

‘needs and emergencies, and family obligations...

79. On January 13, 2021, the Court entered its Order of Immediate Suspension based
"upon Respondent's failure to cooperate with the Office of Bar Counsel. The Order directed Deputy
‘Bar Counsel to file a Formal Charge against Respondent pursuant to Rule 17(6)(4), WR DiseP.

80. A Formal Charge was filed on January 15,2021 alleging a violation of Rue 8.1(b),

WRProf.Cond. (knowing failure to respond to demand for information from a disciplinary

 

autbority),
81, Respondent finally provided the time compilation via email and hand copy on
January 15,2021.
82, On February 3,202, the Coust lifted the suspension,
83. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the following
‘professional misconduct:
‘© Respondent violated Rule 12 (Scope of representation an allocation of authority
‘between client and lawyer) by failing to abide by Wife's directives to (1) exchange
Initial disclosures; (2) commence discovery; and (3) obtain an accounting from her
Imnsband, andor freeze her husband's assets, despite Wife's clearly expressed

9
objectives of ascertaining assets and ensuring marital assets were disclosed and not
<epletod. Respondent further violated Rule 1.2 by filing o follow Wife's directives
‘tha she required information sbout assets and spending before proceeding to mediation
because he made no effort to obtain suid information.

1s Respondent violated Rule 13 (diligence) by failing to diligently or promptly pursue
Wife's objectives and directives to obtain an accounting of assets and ensue assets
‘were not hidden or depleted.

«Respondent violated Rule 1.4 (communication with clit) by:

© Respondent did not communicate wth Wife regarding the basis, if any, for
failing to follow her directives to exchange intial disclosures, commesce
Aiscovery obtain an accounting from her husband and/or feeze her husband's
asses

(© Respondent did not consult with Wife about other avenues, if any, by which she
could accomplish he objectives.

‘© Respondent did not consult with Wife about possible mediation dates or the
{deaity ofthe mediator for six weeks despite multiple communication withthe
mediator and opposing counsel

‘©. Respondent did not respond to Wife's request for an invoice, accounting, or the
remaining retainer,

(© Respondent did not communicate that Wife's “availability retainer” had
purportedly been exhausted.

4. Respondent violated Rules 1.4 and 1.5(t) (ees) by fling to send an invoice to Wife
during the fourteen months be represented her, even after expressly requested, and by

0
filing to communicate that Wife's “avalailty retsiner” had purportedly been
exhausted,
Respondent violated Rule 15(a) (fes) by:
‘© Collecting an unreasonable fe given the amount of egal services actually
performed;
© Failing to exercise billing judgment;
© Overcharging for mumerous tems;
© Charging fr clesicaVsecretaial tasks such as preparation of transit eters,
sending faxes, and cll tothe clerk of cour; and

‘© Refusing toretur any portion of the $5,000.00 “avai

 

retainer” despite
ot earing ll ofthe funds.

{£. Respondent violated Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation) by filing o expedite the litigation
consistent withthe interests of his client

Respondent violated Rule 34 (fimess to oppesing party and counsel) by faitng to
timely respond to inguiries about mediation dates or communicate with opposing
counsel regarding the basis, if any forthe delay in setting mediation. Pursuant to Rule
801(a)) and (5) ofthe Unifinm Rules for District Courts of the State of Wyoming,
[Respondent had a duty to cooperate with opposing counsel. Respondents failure to
communicate or cooperate with opposing counsel violated Rule 801(@)(3) and (5),
Which in tum violated W.R.P.C. 3.4(c) (compliance with the rules of the tribuna).

1. Respondent violated Rule 8.1(b) (cooperation with disciplinary maters) by fuking to
provide information and documents requested by the OBC and failing to respond to
requests altogether.

2
84, In committing the foregoing misconduct, Respondent violated duties owed to his
client (ABA Standards 4.4, 4.6 and 7.0) and to opposing party and counsel (ABA Standard 6.2).
Under the preceding Standards, suspension is the presumptive sanction for Respondeat's
‘misconduct. Respondent knowingly filed to perform services as directed by Wife and caused
serious or potentially serious injury to Wife. Respondent knowingly caused serious or potentially
‘serious injury to Wife by overcharging for numerous items, failed to exercise billing judgment,
and charging Wife st Respondents billing rate for lerial/secretaial tasks such as preparation of
‘ransmital letters, sending faxes, and calls to the clerk of court. Respondent failed to timely
respond to inquiries about mediation dates or communicate with opposing counsel regarding the
basis, ifany, forthe delay in setting mediation, in willful violation of acourt orderand ia violation
‘of Rule 801(a)(3) and (5) of the Uniform Rules for Distrit Cours ofthe State of Wyoming.

85. The facts of Respondent's violation of Rule 8.1(b) (bar admission and disciplinary
‘matters) does not fall squarely within an ABA Standard.

86, The following aggravating factors are present: (1) prior disciplinary record; (2)
patter of misconduct; (3) multiple offenses; (4) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceeding by intentionally filing to cooperate with the OBC’s investigation; ($) submission of
false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (6)
refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; and (7) substantial experience inthe practice

oflaw.

 

[No mitigating factors exist
88. Respondents willingness 10 stipulate to restution is
mitigating as Respondent was indifferent to making resitution but eventually agreed todo so.

 

‘aggravating nor

2
89, In consideration of the foregoing facors and misconduct by Respondent, the
appropriate sanction isa thre year suspension.
90, Ifthe Court edopts the Review Panel's recommendation and issues an Order of|

‘Suspension in accordance herewith, the parties have agreed tothe following press release:

‘The Wyoming Supreme Court issued an oer ofa three-year suspension to Casper
sttomey Donald L. Tolin, In 2019, Wife hired Tolin to represent her ina divorce
proceeding and paid Tolin a non-refundable “availablity retainer” of $5,000.00.
‘The “availability retsinee” was not a fat fe; Tolin's representation agreeznent
siated that Wife was responsible for fees incurred after the $5,000.00 was
exhausted. Wife's husband filed for divorce in April 2020. From June 2019 -
‘August 10, 2020, Wife expressed repeated requests that marital assets should be
‘reserved and expressed concems about the depletion of marital assetsby Husband.
‘After the divorce complaint was fled, Wife immediately began requesting a full
‘sccounting of Husband's assets. She repeatedly asked Tolin about the satus of
initial disclosures and emphasized the importance of receiving Husband's iital
Aiselosures and beginning the discovery process based upon her fears that Husband
ropery utilizing and hiding marital assets. Initial disclosures were due in
2020, and sthough the deadline may be extended by agreement of the partes,
Wife required the commencement ofthe discovery process. Ton'srepreseaation
was terminated on August 18, 2020. Despite Wife's repeated drectivesto exchange
inital disclosures and commence discovery, Tolin never did so. Despite expressing
fears since June 2019 that her husband was hiding assets and demanding a full
‘sccounting, Tolin never requested an accounting from Wife's husband.

In June 2020, the District Court ordered a mediation prior to setting a trial
4s requested by Husband. Between July 2 and August 10, 2020, the medisior
proposed twenty-eight possible mediaion dates spaaning from August 25 through
October 30, 2020, most of which were agreed upon by opposing counsel. Tolin did
‘ot respond timely to several requests and stated he was unavailable for al dates,
‘prompting communications and concems from Husband's attorney and the
‘mediator regarding the dey in resolving the matter since tial could not occur
until the court-ordered mediation took place. Tolin did not communicate with Wife
shout any proposed dates nor notify he of the identity ofthe mediator until August
10, 2020, at which time, he leamed that Wife had a conflict with the proposed
mediator.

 

 

 

 

‘As soon as Tolin’s represeatation was terminated, Wife thrice requested
invoices reflecting the time spent on the case and requested a refund of funds not
utilized, which she never received, During the fourteen months Toi represented
Wife, he never sent an invoice, even after expresdly requested, atd did not
‘communicate that Wife's “availability retainer” had purportelly been exhausted.

 

2B
In October 2020, the Office of Bar Counsel (“OBC”) commenced an
{investigation into Wife's complaint. Between October 1 -November 17, 2020, the
‘OBC requested Tolin’s time compilation and invoices on four occasions. Tolin did
‘ot provide the compilation or request extensions of time to provide the
compilation. Tolin did not respond to the OBC’s last inquiry despite the OBC’s
‘warning that filing to comply would esult in a Formal Charge alleging violations
of Rule 8.1(b). On Jemuary 13, 2021, the Wyoming Supreme Court entered an
Order of Immediate Suspension based upon Tolin's failure to cooperate with the
BC.

‘After the suspension, Toln provided a time compilation and invoice tothe
OBC. The invoices reflect tha that he repeatedly charged $20.00 for texts and
‘emails containing litle information or containing information unrelated to legal
issues, such as information about Tolin's grandchild. Many of the texts and emails,
‘occured on the same day, resulting in multiple charges for individual texts and
‘emails even though the sum ofthe time spent responding to the emails or texts was,
rot more thaa the amount billed for seading just one response. Tolin also charged
separately fr listening to voicemuilseven when performing other services the sarse
day, such as speaking with Wife afte billing her $20.00 separately for listening to
‘the voicemail. In addition, on April 4, 2020, Tolin charged $80.00 forthe following
services by separately charging $20.00 for each iten:

 

(© Reviewing a voicemail;
(© Sending the following texts:
+ *{Wie}: Received your message. Can you please Scan and email me
the paperwork you were served today.”
+ "Welcome. Don’t stress”
* "Received. Thanks I'l review and get back to you.”

olin charged $240.00 for other legal services on the same day. Tolin also billed
his hourly rate for clrical/seeretaral tasks such as preparation of transmittal eters,
sending fixes, and calls tothe clerk of court.

olin admitted that his conduct violated numerous Rules of Professional
Conduct. He admited violating Rule 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation af
authority between client and lawyer) by failing to comply with his client's
directives. He violated Rule 1.3 (diligence) and Rule 3.2 (expediting litigation) by
neglecting the case for several months, He violated Rule 1.4 (communication with
lint) by failing to respond to numerous ioquiies fom hs lint. Ton furher
conceded violations of Rule 1.5 (fes) by filing to exercise professiona billing
Jndgment and excessive charges, incioding charging for clea tasks ahs lawyer
hourly rate. Tolin violated Rule 3.4) (duty to abide by the rules ofthe tribunal)
‘by willy violating a court order for mediation of the cas, olin conduc also
‘violated Rule 801(a)(3) and (5) (standards of professional behavior) of the Uniform
Rules for District Cuts ofthe State of Wyoming, Tlin further admit that his
failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation violated Rule 8.1. In

    

 

m4
spproving the recommendation of the Board of Professional Conduct's
recommendation of a three-year suspension as the appropriate sanction for Tolin’s
conduct, the Court ordered Tolin to pay administrative fees in the amount of
{$750.00 and costs of $50.00 to the Wyoming State Bar. Tolin was also required to
refund $1500,00t0 Wife.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
91. Rule 12, W.RProfCond, provides in pertinent part:

@) Subject wo paragraphs (©), (@), and (6), a lawyer shall abide by a clients
decisions concerning the objective of representation, and, es required by Rule
1.4 shall consult with the clieat as tothe meansby whick they are tobe pursued.
‘A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client asis impliedly authorized
to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a clien's deci
‘whether to settle « matter. In a criminal ease, the lawyer shall abide by the
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered,
‘whether to waive jury tial and whether the client wil testify

 

92, Rule 13, W.RProf.Cond, provides, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a cient.

93. Rule 14, W.RProf:Cond, provides in pertinent pat

(@ A lawyer shall:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect
to which the client's informed consent, as defined in 1.0(), is required by these
Rules;

(2) reasonably consult withthe client about the means by which the client's
objectives are to be accomplished;

G) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter,

(#) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(S) consult withthe client about ary relevant limitation on the lawyer's
conduct when the lawyer lnows thatthe client expeats assistance not permitted by
the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

94, Rule 1.5, W.R Prof-Cond, provides in pertinent part:
(@) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable
fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in
<etermiaing the reasonableness of a fee include the following:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and didficlty of the
questions involved, and the sill requisite to perform the legal

25
service properly;

(2) the likelihood, if sppareat othe eliem, that the acceptance of the
particular employment will preclude other employment by the
lawyer;

G) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal
services;

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

(S) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
cireumstances;

(6 te care and lng ofthe professional reaionship wit he
lien;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability ofthe lawyer or lawyers
performing the services; and

(@) wheter the fe is fixed or contingent.
(€) The scope of the representation andthe basis or rate of the fee and expenses for
hich the cient wil be responsible shal be comnnicated to the client, preferably
{in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation,
‘except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client onthe same basis
‘orrate. Continget fee agreements must be in writing and must comply withthe
provisions of the Rules Governing Contingent Fees for Members ofthe Wyoming
Sate Bar. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also be
commaniested tothe cient.

95. Rule 32, W.RProf Cond, provides, “A lawyer shall make reaonsble efforts to
‘expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the cient”

96, Rule 34, WRDProf.Cond, provides in pertinent pat, “A lawyer shall
not..knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules ofa tribunal except for an open refisal
‘based oman assertion thatno valid obligation exists.”

97, Rl 801(8(3) and (5) ofthe Uniform Rules for Distct Courts of the State of

‘Wyoming states in pertinent part:
‘Standards of professional behavior.

As one of the leamed professions, the practice of law is founded upon
principles of fimess, decency, integrity and honor. Professionalism connotes
adherence by stloreys in their relations with judges, colleagues, litigants,
witnesses and the public to appropriate standards of behavior. The
‘Wyoming, in furtherance of the inherent power
supervise proceedings before them, shall hold atime o the following standards

 

(of professional behavior:

98,

lawyer in connection with a bac admission application orn connection with a disciplinary matter,
shall not: (8) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or (b) fail to disclose a fact
necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the mater, or
‘knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary
authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by

Rule 1.6"

() Standards of Behavior in Adjudicative Proceedings.

3) Attomeys shall at all times extend reasonable
‘cooperation to opposing counsel. Attomeys shall not arbitraly or
‘unreasonably withhold consest to opposing counsel's requests for
reasonable scheduling or logistical accommodations, nor shall they
condition their cooperation on disproportionate or unreasonable
demands.

(3) Attomeys shall be reasonably punctual in their
‘communications with all persons involved in the adjudicative
process and shall appear on time for all duly scheduled events
involved in the adjudicaive process, unless excused or detained by
circumstances beyond their reasonable control. When an attomey,
or an atfomey’s client, ora witness under the reasonable control of
tan attorney, becomes unavailable for a duly scheduled even, then,
the attomey shall promptly notify opposing counsel and, where
‘ppc, court repos, courtperwonma anlther involved in

event.

 

Rule 8.1, W.RProf.Cond,, provides, “An applicant for admission to the bat, or &

courts of
‘and responsibility of courts to
99. Rule 84, W.RProfCond, provides in pertinent part:
Itis professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(b) commit 2 criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness asa lawyer in other respects;
(© engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(@) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration af justice ***
100. Rule 15(6\3XD), W.RDise-P, provides, “In imposing a sanction after finding of

‘misconduct by the respondent, the BPR shall consider the following factors, as emurnerated inthe

 

 

ABA Standards for imposing Lawyer Sanctions:

1. Whether the lawyer has violaied a duty owed to a client, to the publi, to
the legal system, or tothe profession;

2. Whether the lawyer acted intentionally, kuowingly, or negligently;

3. The amount of the actus! or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
‘misconduct; and

4. The existence of any ageravating or mitigating factors.

101. Standard 4.4, “Lack of Diligence," ofthe ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions ses forth the following guidelines:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application ofthe
{actos set ouin Standard 3.0, the following sagctions are generally appropriate in
cases involving a failure to act with reasonable digence and promptness in
representing cient:

441 Disbarmeat is generally appropriate when:
(@) 2 lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially serious

 

injury to a client; or
(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and cause
setious or potentially serious injury toa client; or

 
 

(© a lawyer engages in a pattem of neglect with respect to
and causes serious or potentially serious injury toa client.
442 Suspension is generally appropriate where
(@) 2 lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes
injury or potential injury toa client, or
(b) a lawyer engages in a patem of neglect with respect to client matters
and causes injury or potential injury toa client.
443 Roprimand {ie, “public censure” under Rule 9(a)3) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent

Ey
1nd does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and
causes injury or potential injury to a cient.

444 Admonition [ie., “private reprimand” under Rule 9(a)4) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when & lawyer is negligent
‘and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and
‘cause litle or no actual or potential injury to a client.

102, ABA Standard 4.6, “Lack of Candor," provides:

Absent aggravating or mitigating cireumstances, upon application ofthe factors set
cut in Standard 3.0, te following sanctions are generally approprite in cases involving a
failure to act wit reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a cient:

441 Disbanment is generally appropriate when:

(a) lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially serious injury
toactient; or

(©) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services fora client and cause serious or
Potentially serious injury toa client; or

(©)alawyer engages in a pattem of neglect with respect o client matters and causes
soso penile nyc

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

(@) 8 lawyer knowingly fails o perform services fora client and causes injury or
Poteaial injury to aclient, or

(W)alawyer engagesin a pattmn of neglect with respect to cliet matters and causes
injury or potential injury to client.

443 Reprimand (i, “public censure” under Rule 9(a)3) of the Rules of Dissiplinary
Procedure) is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act
with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential
injury toa client

444 Admonition {i “private reprimand” under Rule (aX) of the Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and
oes not act with reasonable diligence ia representing a client, and causes litle oF
‘no actual or potential injury to a client.

103. ABA Standard 6.2, “Abuse of Legal Process” provides:
‘ABA Standard 62 provides:

 

 

 

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application ofthe actors
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 10
obey aay obligation under the rules ofthe tribunal except fr an open refusal based
‘on an assertion that no valid obligation

621 _Disbannent is generally appropriate when a lawyer kaowingly
violates a court order ora rae with the intent to obsain a benefit forthe lawyer or

 

29
soother, and causes scious or potentially serious injury to pany or causes serious
eee nee proceeding.

Suspension is generally appropiate whens lawyer ows that he or
she tslaig ncuron ea any opera pry touche
‘or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.
623 Reprimand [i.e., “public censure” under Rule 9(a}(3) of the Rules of
cilinary Procedure) is gencally appropiate when awyer negligently fils 0
comply with a court order o rl, and cates inary or potential inary ta lint
or other party, or cause interference or potential interference with legal
proceeding.

6.24 Admonition (i.e, “private reprimand” under Rule 9a)(4) of the
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages:
in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule, and
causes litle or no actual or potential injury to pasty, or causes ite or no actual
‘or potential intrrence wit algal proceeding.

104, ABA Standard 7.0, “Violations of Other Duties Owed as a Professional,” provides:

Absent aggrvating oF mitigating circumstances, upon aplication of the
factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in
casesinvolving false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's
Services, improper communication of fels of practice, improper solicitation of
profesional employment fom a prospective cient, unreasonable or improper fs,

Umnaubborized practice of law, improper withdrawal from misrepresentaton, of
Sure to repor professional misconduct.

7.1 _Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
engages in conduct tht is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the
intent to obtain a benefit forthe lawyer or another, and causes Serious r potentially

‘the public or the legal system.

72 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
‘engages in conduct that is violation ofa duty owed as a professional and causes
injury or potential injury tacit, the publi, or he egal syste,

Reprimand {i., “public censure” under Rule 9(a)3) ofthe Rules of
Disciplinary Prcturl Geely appropiate when lawyer neplgey
‘engages in conduct that sa violation of a duty owed asa professional and causes
{injury or potential injury toa client, the pubic o the legal system.

74. Admontion (Le, “private reprimand” under Rule 90)(4) of the
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriste when a lawyer cugage:
in an isolated instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed as a
‘profesional, and causes litle or no actual or potential injury oa client, he publi,
cor the legal system,

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

105, ‘The Preface to the ABA Standards includes the following discussion regarding
‘mental state:

30
The meatal states used inthis model are defined a follows, The most culpable
‘ena sate that of nent, when te Iyer at wth the conscious objective
‘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 cieumnstances of sober conduct both without te consious objec
‘or purpose to accomplish a particular result, The least culpable mental state is
‘eligence, when a layer flo be avare ofa absaatal ik tat cesances
xis or that a rest wil follow, which fale isa deviadon ofa cae that 8
reasonable lawyer would exerci nthe sitaton

106. Under the ABA Standards, “iajury” is defined as “harm toa client, the public, the
legal system, or the profession wich results from a lawyer's misconduct. The level of injury can

 

range from ‘serious injury to‘lttle or no" injury; a reference to “injury” alone indicates any leve!

‘of injury greater than “litle or no” injury.” “Potential injury” is defined as “harm to a client, the
‘public, the legal system or the profession that i reasonably foreseeable atthe time ofthe lawyer's
‘misconduct, and which, but for some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted
from the lawyer's misconduct”

107. ABA Standard 9.0, entitled “Agarevetion and Mitigation,” provides as follows:

91 Generally
‘After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigaing circumstances
may be considered in deciding what sanction to impose.
92 Aggravation
921 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations or
factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.
922 Factors which may be considered in aggravation. Aggravating factors include:
(@) prior disciplinary offenses;
(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) a patter of misconduct;
(@) muiple offenses,
() bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intestionally ailing to
comply with rules or orders ofthe disciplinary agency;
(® submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices
uring the disciplinary process;
(8) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(h) vulnerability ofthe victim;
@) substantial experience inthe practice of law;
) indifference in making restitution; and
6 illegal conduct, including that involving the use of controlled substances.

31
93. Mitigation.
931 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any considerations or
{factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed.

932 Factors which may be considered in mitigation. Mitigating factors include:
(@) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(©) personal or emotional
@ timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of
misconduct,
(lo fee dln of

Co enpatene nthe pace of ew;

(g) character or reputstion;

(hy physical disability,

(@) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug abuse
when:

inary board or cooperative attitude toward

 

(1) there is medical evidence that the respondent is affected by a chemical
dependency or mental disability;

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

G) the respondent's recovery from the chemical dependency or mental
disability is demonstrated by a meaningful and sustained period of
successful rchabilitation; and

(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct and recurrence of that misconduct is
uolikely

() delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(] imposion of other penalties or sanctions;
() remorse; ad
(ex) remoteness of prior offenses.
94 Factors Which Are Netther Aggravating nor Mitigating.
The following factors should not be consideredas eithes aggravating nor mitigating
(@) forced of compelled restitution;
(©) agreeing tothe client's demand for certain improper behavior or result
(©) withdrawal of complsiat against the lawyer,
(@) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;
(@) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and
(f) fare if injured client o complain.

RECOMMENDATION
In consideration ofthe foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of lew, the Review Panel

   

 

 

recommends as follows:
1. That Respodeatbe suspended fr thee yeas for volaions of Res 1.2, 13,14,
1.5,32,34,and 81, WR Prof Cond

2
2 That the suspension commence on January 1, 2022.

3. That, upon issuance of the order of suspension, the foregoing press release may be
issued.

4. That Respondent be required to pay an administrative fee of $750.00 and costs of
‘$50.00 tothe Wyoming State Bar within 10 days of such order.

Dated this 22 day of November, 2021,

Debra J. Wendiand, Chair
Review Pane! of the Board of Professional
Responsibility

‘Wyoming Stae Bar

33