Opinion ID: 2794292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity for a Hearing

Text: [¶28] Section 19(c) of the Disciplinary Code provides the opportunity for respondent to attend a hearing in which he may present evidence to the BPR. However, § 11(m) provides that when “the respondent fails to answer the formal charge . . . Bar Counsel may file a motion for entry of an order of default.” [¶29] Mr. Custis had the opportunity for a hearing on the rule violations and waived it through his own actions. See Zweifel v. State ex rel. Brimmer, 517 P.2d 493, 499 (Wyo. 1974) (“Once the default is established defendant has no further standing to contest the factual allegations of plaintiff’s claim for relief.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). 3 Section 11(n) of the Disciplinary Code provides: “Rules 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 46, 56, 58, 60, and 61 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to disciplinary proceedings so far as the provisions in those rules are in their natures applicable and consistent with these rules.” 9 [¶30] Mr. Custis argues that the mere availability of a hearing when facing potential loss of one’s law license does not satisfy due process requirements. He cites to In re Williams, 464 A.2d 115, 119 (D.C. 1983), in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that failure to hold an ex parte hearing on the charges against the defaulting attorney was a due process violation. However, there the court rested its decision not on the fact that a hearing is always required for a defaulting party, but instead on the hearing committee’s findings of multiple disciplinary code violations based solely on the unsworn charges in the petition. Id. The court concluded that a defaulting attorney cannot be stripped of his law license based on a default unsupported by proof. Id. It did not, however, declare that an evidentiary hearing is mandated in all default cases. Id. [¶31] The same court later rejected the argument that Williams requires an evidentiary hearing in In re Sheih, 738 A.2d 814 (D.C. 1999), a reciprocal discipline case. In Sheih, the court found sufficient evidence of misconduct where the California State Bar had based its decision “on both the facts deemed to have been admitted by Respondent’s default and on the additional documentary evidence submitted by the State Bar[.]” Sheih, 738 A.2d at 817 (emphasis in original). Contrary to Mr. Custis’s assertion, the holdings in Williams and Sheih do not establish that an evidentiary hearing is required in disciplinary proceedings when the respondent has defaulted. Instead, they stand for the proposition that an attorney who defaults in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be denied his or her license without a factual basis in addition to the allegations deemed admitted by virtue of the default. [¶32] The requirement of § 11(m) of the Disciplinary Code that upon default, “[n]o order shall be entered or recommendation made to the Court without the BPR being satisfied that there is a factual basis for the violation . . .” comports with the holding in Williams and Sheih. In this matter, bar counsel submitted six exhibits to support a factual basis for the rule violations, in addition to the allegations deemed admitted by the default. Mr. Custis was given an opportunity for a hearing to confront the disciplinary allegations made against him; however he lost that opportunity when he defaulted. We conclude the hearing prong of due process was satisfied.