Title: SPEIGHT, MCCUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. V. FRENCH CARTER WALLOP AND SCOTT M. GOODWYN; FRENCH CARTER WALLOP AND SCOTT M. GOODWYN V. SPEIGHT, MCCUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SPEIGHT, MCCUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. V. FRENCH CARTER WALLOP AND SCOTT M. GOODWYN; FRENCH CARTER WALLOP AND SCOTT M. GOODWYN V. SPEIGHT, MCCUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.2005 WY 75115 P.3d 39Case Number: No. 04-263 & 05-35Decided: 07/11/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
SPEIGHT, McCUE & 
ASSOCIATES, P.C.,          

Appellants 
(Respondents)                           

 
 
v.                                             

 
 
FRENCH CARTER WALLOP and 
 SCOTT M. 
GOODWYN,

   Appellees (Petitioners).                            

 
 
FRENCH CARTER WALLOP and 
SCOTT M. GOODWYN        

Appellants 
(Petitioners),                               

 
 
v.                                             

 
 
SPEIGHT, McCUE & 
ASSOCIATES, P.C.,          

Appellee 
(Respondent).                               

 
 

 
 

Representing Speight, 
McCue & Associates, P.C.:

 
 
            
William M. McKellar of Boley & McKellar, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing French 
Carter Wallop and Scott M. Goodwyn:

 
 
            
Daniel B. Frank of Frank Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
 
 
Before VOIGT, J., and 
DONNELL, BROOKS, PARK and JAMES, D.JJ.

 
 
 
 
  
 
            
VOIGT, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      An adjudicative 
panel of the Wyoming State Bar Committee on Resolution of Fee Disputes 
(Committee) issued an order substantially in favor of a law firm.  A petition for review in the district 
court brought substantially the opposite result.  In Case No. 04-262, the law firm appeals 
that portion of the district court judgment adverse to it, and in Case No. 
05-35, the clients appeal that portion of the district court judgment adverse to 
them.1  We reverse and remand the entire matter 
to the district court for further remand to the Committee for an evidentiary 
hearing.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The dispositive 
issue is one not raised by the parties:  
Should the district court have taken additional evidence or should it 
have ordered the adjudicative panel to take additional 
evidence?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      French Carter 
Wallop (Wallop) hired Speight, McCue & Associates, P.C.'s predecessor firm 
(Speight) to represent her in a divorce action.  Wallop's son, Scott M. Goodwyn 
(Goodwyn), executed a guaranty agreement covering Wallop's legal fees.  The present controversy primarily 
involves the question of whether payments Goodwyn made during the course of the 
legal representation should be credited against his obligation under the 
guaranty agreement.2

 
 
[¶4]      After the divorce 
action was complete, Wallop had not paid all of the attorneys' fees and costs 
that had been billed to her, and Speight made demand upon Goodwyn under the 
guaranty agreement.  Wallop and 
Goodwyn filed a petition for resolution of fee dispute with the Wyoming State 
Bar.  Following a hearing, the 
assigned panel from the Committee issued a resolution order in which it 
concluded that Goodwyn was liable to Speight under the guaranty agreement for 
$100,000.00, in addition to the $103,226.00 that Goodwyn had already paid.  Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules for 
Resolution of Fee Disputes (RRFD), Wallop and Goodwyn filed a petition for 
review in the district court.  After 
taking additional evidence, the district court reversed the Committee's order, 
for the most part.  Both parties 
appealed.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      Reversal is 
required in this case because the district court, while acting in an appellate 
capacity, erroneously took evidence.  
RRFD 14 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

 
 
            
(d) At the date set for hearing, the district court shall review the record, which, if 
electronically recorded, shall be transcribed by the party seeking review.  If, before the date set for hearing, 
application is made to the court for leave to present additional evidence and 
shows to the satisfaction of the court that additional evidence is material and 
there was good reason for failure to present it in the proceeding before the 
panel, the court may order that additional evidence 
be taken.  The court may 
receive written briefs and hear oral arguments in its presentation and fix a 
briefing schedule.

 
 
            
(e) The court may enter judgment to affirm or reverse or 
may remand the case to the committee for further proceedings.  The decision of the court shall 
constitute a final judgment for review by the Wyoming Supreme Court pursuant to 
Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.

 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)

 
 
[¶6]      Several things 
are clear in this rule.  First, the 
district court is to make its determination by reviewing the record.  Second, the rule authorizes the district 
court to order that additional evidence be 
taken; it does not authorize the district court to take 
additional evidence.  Third, 
the district court has three choices:  
it may affirm, it may reverse, or it may remand for further proceedings, 
presumably additional evidentiary proceedings.  RRFD 14 is unambiguous, and it does not 
authorize the district court to take evidence during the judicial review 
process.3

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶7]      Instead of 
taking additional evidence, the district court should have remanded this matter 
to the Committee and ordered the panel to take additional evidence.  Reversed and remanded for that 
purpose.

 
 
 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1The "clients" are actually the 
client and her son, who guaranteed payment of the client's attorneys' 
fees.

  2Other issues include application of 
a retainer fee, the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees and costs, and whether 
interest on attorneys' fees could be charged.

  3"Court rules have the force and 
effect of law and are construed in the same manner as statutes."  Paxton Resources, L.L.C. v. Brannaman, 
2004 WY 93, ¶ 16, 95 P.3d 796, 801 (Wyo. 2004), 
cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 976 (2005).  
We give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of words used in an 
unambiguous statute.  Lance Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyoming Dept. of 
Revenue, 2004 WY 156, ¶ 12, 
101 P.3d 899, 903 (Wyo. 
2004).