Opinion ID: 6534235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What is the appropriate discipline?

Text: [¶39] The BPR recommended that the Court issue an order of public censure to Mr. Hiatt, require him to reimburse Mr. Dudzik's attorney fees in the amount of $1,150.00, pay a $750.00 administrative fee pursuant to Wyo. R. of Prof. Conduct 25(b), and reimburse the Wyoming State Bar $3,674.39 for certified costs pursuant to Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 25(e). Bar Counsel objects to this recommendation, arguing that a 30-day suspension would be more appropriate discipline. [¶40] To determine the appropriate sanctions, we look to the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) (ABA Standards). Custis , 2015 WY 59 , ¶ 43, 348 P.3d at 833 . [W]hile we are obligated to consider the ABA standards in deciding what sanction to impose, we do not apply those standards mechanically or adhere to them rigidly. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Mears , 2018 WY 58 , ¶ 43, 418 P.3d 829 , 839 (Wyo. 2018). [¶41] ABA Standard 3.0 lists four factors to be considered in imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. We address each of these standards below.
[¶42] The first factor is the duty that was violated. Mr. Hiatt violated several duties: duties to exercise diligence, to communicate, to charge a reasonable fee, and to refund unused fees upon termination of representation. [¶43] ABA Standard 4.4 sets forth presumptive sanctions for lack of diligence: 4.4 Lack of Diligence Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client: 4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: (a) a 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 causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client. 4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when: (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect [that] causes injury or potential injury to a client. 4.43 Reprimand 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 to a client. 4.44 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing  a client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. [¶44] ABA Standard 7 addresses sanctions for violations of other duties, such as the failure to charge reasonable fees or withdrawal from representation: 7.0 Violations of Other Duties as a Professional Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services, improper communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional misconduct. 7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. 7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. 7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. 7.4 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. [¶45] According to these standards, either suspension or reprimand would be the appropriate presumptive sanction based upon Mr. Hiatt's conduct in this matter.
[¶46] The second factor is the lawyer's mental state. The ABA Standards define three levels of mental states: Intent is the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. Knowledge is the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. Negligence is the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. ABA Standards, III. Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: Black Letter Rules, Definitions. [¶47] The BPR did not reach any conclusions regarding Mr. Hiatt's mental state. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Hiatt intended to violate the rules or cause any particular harm to Mr. Dudzik. Further, while he should have been aware that his conduct violated the rules, especially in light of his sanction in November 2016, we cannot say that Bar Counsel established that awareness by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Hiatt's violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct comport with the ABA's definition of a negligent mental state.
[¶48] The third factor we consider is the potential or actual injury caused by the misconduct. The ABA Standards define injury as follows: [H]arm to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession which results from a lawyer's misconduct. The level of injury can range from serious injury to little or no injury; a reference to injury alone indicates any level of injury greater than little or no injury. ABA Standards, III. Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: Black Letter Rules, Definitions. Potential injury is:  [H]arm to a client, the public, the legal system or the profession that is reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer's misconduct, and which, but from some intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer's misconduct. Id. [¶49] Certainly, Mr. Dudzik suffered financial harm when Mr. Hiatt refused to return the unearned portion of his fee. In addition, Mr. Dudzik was at least potentially injured by Mr. Hiatt's lack of diligence in this matter. As Mr. Dudzik explained in his termination letter, because of the delays, he was no longer in a position to seek full custody of his child since over that time Mother's behavior improved.
[¶50] The final factor is the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. The ABA Standards define and list aggravating and mitigating circumstances that may be considered in determining an appropriate sanction. ABA Standards 9.0-9.32. 3 We find four aggravating factors in this case: refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, substantial experience in the practice of law; and prior disciplinary offenses. Standards 9.22(a), (e), (g), and (i). We find no relevant mitigating factors.
[¶51] The record contains clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hiatt has refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. At the hearing before the BPR, instead of acknowledging his failures to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct, Mr. Hiatt offered excuses. For example, he stated that his computer crashed, that he thought Mr. Dudzik did not have the money to pay for a GAL, and that he did not respond to emails from his client because nothing had changed. Mr. Hiatt also continued to maintain that he did not owe a refund of fees to his client and testified that he had changed the language of his fee agreement  after he had been disciplined for failing to refund fees in a similar matter.
[¶52] Mr. Hiatt failed to respond to Bar Counsel's discovery requests. On September 19, 2017, Bar Counsel served written discovery consisting of interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. After Mr. Hiatt failed to respond, Bar counsel contacted him by email and U.S. mail, attempting to confer in good faith ... in an effort to obtain responses, and indicating that if he did not receive responses, he would file a motion to compel. When Mr. Hiatt did not respond, Bar Counsel filed a motion to compel, which was granted. The BPR ordered Mr. Hiatt to fully respond to Bar Counsel's interrogatories and requests for production by November 29, 2017. On that date, Mr. Hiatt emailed unsigned answers to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Because those documents provided no new information in response to Bar Counsel's discovery requests, Bar Counsel filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting appropriate sanctions. The BPR granted that motion, ordering that Mr. Hiatt shall not be allowed to use any exhibits, documents, or other information not disclosed to or in the possession of Bar Counsel as of November 29, 2017 [and] shall not be permitted to call any witness other than himself at the hearing.... This failure to comply with discovery rules and then the BPR's subsequent order after Bar Counsel's motion to compel is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hiatt engaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency.
[¶53] Mr. Hiatt has been licensed to practice law in Wyoming since 1998, providing clear and convincing evidence that he has substantial experience in the practice of law. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Hiatt , 2016 WY 105 , 382 P.3d 778 , 779 (Wyo. 2016) (Appendix-BPR Report and Recommendation for Order of Public Censure); Custis , 2015 WY 59 , ¶ 55, 348 P.3d at 835-36 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ferguson , 170 Wash.2d 916 , 246 P.3d 1236 , 1250 (2011) (substantial experience is established when attorney has practice 10 or more years at the time of the misconduct).
[¶54] Finally, the record contains clear and convincing evidence of Mr. Hiatt's prior disciplinary record. See Hiatt , 2016 WY 105 , 382 P.3d 778 . Mr. Hiatt's conduct in that matter was strikingly similar to his conduct in the present matter; we found violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.16, publicly censured Mr. Hiatt, and required him to return unearned portions of his fee, along with fees and costs. Id ., 382 P.3d at 782 (Appendix-BPR Report and Recommendation for Order of Public Censure). [¶55] Regarding prior discipline, the ABA Standards provide: 8.0 Prior Discipline Orders Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving prior discipline. .... 8.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession. 8.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer : (a) negligently violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession; or (b) has received an admonition for the same or similar misconduct and engages in further similar acts of misconduct that cause injury or potential  injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession . (Emphasis added.) This standard provides a stand-alone basis for discipline of an attorney who had been previously disciplined. Undoubtedly, Mr. Hiatt's prior discipline weighs in favor of a harsher sanction. See Custis , 2015 WY 59 , ¶ 53, 348 P.3d at 835 (finding prior discipline of public censure to be an aggravating factor). [¶56] ABA Standard 8.2 states that suspension is generally appropriate when an attorney has been reprimanded for the same or similar misconduct in the past. The ABA Standards define reprimand as censure or public censure, ... a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer's right to practice. ABA Standards, B. Sanctions, § 2.5. By contrast, ABA Standard 8.3 contemplates reprimand when an attorney has received admonition for the same or similar conduct in the past. The ABA Standards define admonition as private reprimand, ... a form of non-public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer's right to practice. Id . at § 2.6. Because Mr. Hiatt has received public censure for similar conduct, this case falls under the purview of ABA Standard 8.2. [¶57] We have explained that: [T]here is no magic formula for determining how aggravating and mitigating circumstances affect an otherwise appropriate sanction. In re Disciplinary Matter of Friedman , 23 P.3d 620 , 633 (Alaska 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining the appropriate sanction, we must balance the rehabilitative and deterrent purposes of attorney discipline. [W]e view discipline as assisting, if possible, in the rehabilitation of an errant lawyer. In re Scholl , 200 Ariz. 222 , 25 P.3d 710 , 712 (2001). [T]he discipline must be fair to the attorney, with the object of correcting the wayward tendency in the accused lawyer while offering ... a fair and reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation. The Florida Bar v. Cox , 794 So.2d 1278 , 1286 (Fla. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although attorney discipline can serve to improve the performance of attorneys who have strayed in performing their ethical obligations, when an attorney continues to engage in professional and ethical misconduct in spite of previous sanctions, our concern weighs more heavily toward deterrence, maintaining the integrity of the legal system, and protecting the public. Custis , 2015 WY 59 , ¶ 56, 348 P.3d at 836 . [¶58] The BPR recommended public censure but provided little analysis supporting its recommendation. We conclude that public censure is not a sufficient reprimand in this case. Mr. Hiatt received public censure for nearly identical conduct and that sanction failed to deter him. Based upon our application of the ABA Standard 8.2, in addition to our consideration of the aggravating factors contained in Standard 9.22, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in this matter is a 30-day suspension, in addition to the monetary sanctions recommended by the BPR. [¶59] Other courts have ordered suspensions for negligent conduct when a lawyer repeats misconduct for which he has been previously reprimanded. For example, the Kansas Supreme Court imposed a one-year suspension on a lawyer who failed to return his client's telephone calls in a timely manner, failed to respond to written requests from his client's insurer regarding settlement of the matter, and had been sanctioned for communication failures in the past. In re Francis , 276 Kan. 898 , 79 P.3d 1285 , 1288 (2003). In In re Jones , 487 N.W.2d 599 , 601 (N.D. 1992), a lawyer violated the rules of conduct by failing to keep his clients informed and by failing to complete the work he was hired to perform. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that because he had been issued two private reprimands for similar conduct in the past, the appropriate sanction would be a 30-day suspension. Id . at 602. The same court, in In re Lucas , 789 N.W.2d 73 , 78 (N.D. 2010), ordered a 30-day suspension for an attorney's improper communication with a represented party when the attorney had previously been reprimanded for similar misconduct. Likewise, in People v. Frank , 752 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1988), the Colorado Supreme Court noted that the lawyer had been privately censured for neglect in representing  a past client. The court held that his engagement in similar misconduct warranted a 30-day suspension. Id . at 542. See also In re Kostich , 344 Wis.2d 534 , 824 N.W.2d 799 , 803 (2012) (lawyer who had been publicly reprimanded for failure to respond to clients' requests for information about their cases was suspended for 60 days when he engaged in similar conduct three years later); In re Askew , 776 N.W.2d 816 , 823 (N.D. 2010) (where lawyer received prior admonition for same or similar misconduct, 60-day suspension was warranted); Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility , 301 S.W.3d 603 , 618 (Tenn. 2010) (disbarring lawyer with numerous prior disciplinary proceedings who continue[d] to repeat the same mistakes); In re Rivera , 112 N.M. 217 , 813 P.2d 1015 , 1016 (1991) (When an attorney has been reprimanded but continues to engage in the same or similar misconduct, suspension for practice is generally the appropriate sanction.). [¶60] ABA Standards 4.42, 8.2, 9.22, and our review of sanctions imposed in Wyoming and other jurisdictions indicate that the appropriate sanction is a 30-day suspension. Despite receiving a public censure for nearly identical conduct in the past, Mr. Hiatt failed to adequately communicate with his client and keep him apprised of the status of his case; he failed to perform the work for which he was hired, which caused a delay that likely harmed his client; and, finally, once representation was terminated, he failed to return the unearned portion of his fee. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: [¶61] 1. Mr. Hiatt shall be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 30 days, commencing July 2, 2018, and must comply with Rule 21 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure; 2. Mr. Hiatt shall reimburse his client $1,150.00 for unearned legal fees that had been paid; and 3. Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Mr. Hiatt shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar $3,674.39 for its costs incurred in handling this matter and shall pay an administrative fee of $750.00. Mr. Hiatt shall pay the total amount of $4,424.39 to the Wyoming State Bar on no later than December 1, 2018. DATED this 11th day of June, 2018. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. JAMES BURKE