Court Opinion

ID: 9535989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:52:51.846822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:24.820793
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the decision to reverse and remand, but strenuously reject the posture *741adopted by this court regarding code of conduct preclusions of ex parte contact between counsel and the trial court. I strongly believe, as was comprehensively considered in Brooks v. Zebre, 792 P.2d 196 (Wyo.1990), Urbigkit, J., dissenting, that systemic correction of ex parte contacts can more simply and decisively be achieved by reversal of each case in which it occurs.
Unless this character of conduct is to become, acceptable and generally justified by what really happens in practice, it is high time that a brightline rule be established. That rule has the epitome of significance: (a) do not do it; and (b) if you do and it involves something of real significance in the litigative process where otherwise unjustified by scheduling, etc., then summary reversal should be granted by this court. Enforcement of the prohibition would then not be left to the intangible factors involved in disciplinary proceedings, but emplaced where 'it occurred with adverse result in the involved litigation. Moore v. Moore, 809 P.2d 261 (Wyo.1991), Urbigkit, C.J., dissenting; Brooks, 792 P.2d 196.
If one is a practitioner of the concept now frequently heard in legislative debates about “sending a message,” a brightline rule involving risk of reversal would provide an effective deterrent to this character of questionable counsel/court conduct.