Rule 1.3 Diligence

Rule Text

Amendment history: Amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. Censure. — Where an attorney failed to diligently pursue three matters and failed to adequately communicate with his clients, in violation of Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4, a public censure was ordered; the aggravating factors included a prior disciplinary action, a pattern of misconduct, and experience in the practice of law. The mitigating factor was the absence of a selfish or dishonest motive. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Abraham, 2006 WY 150, 149 P.3d 456, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 171 (Wyo. 2006). Where an attorney failed to pursue two matters diligently and did not respond truthfully to his clients about filings, he received a public censure for violating Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4. The aggravating circumstances included a pattern of misconduct and substantial experience in the practice of law; the mitigating circumstance was the absence of a prior disciplinary record. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Keenan, 2006 WY 149, 148 P.3d 1, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 170 (Wyo. 2006). Attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 by failing to diligently pursue three cases; in one of the cases, the attorney’s failure to diligently pursue the case resulted in dismissal of the matter. Swain v. State, 2009 WY 142, 220 P.3d 504, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 154 (Wyo. 2009). Attorney was publicly censured due to his violations of the professional conduct rules dealing with competence, diligence, and communication while representing a client during a driving under the influence case; inter alia, the attorney encouraged a plea deal, despite the fact that the client had no alcohol in his system. The attorney had several aggravating and mitigating factors, including his recovery from alcohol dependency and prior disciplinary offenses. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Johnson, 2015 WY 112, 355 P.3d 1234, 2015 Wyo. LEXIS 126 (Wyo. 2015). Plaintiff ’s attorney owes no duty to defendant. — A court will not imply a duty upon the plaintiff ’s attorney simply based upon his silence to a request for information by the defendant. An attorney’s duties are to his client, not to the adverse party. Halberstam v. Cokeley, 872 P.2d 109, 1994 Wyo. LEXIS 44 (Wyo. 1994), reh’g denied, 1994 Wyo. LEXIS 97 (Wyo. Aug. 31, 1994). Expert witness required in malpractice case. — Even though an attorney failed to timely file objections on behalf of the client in Drug Enforcement Administration forfeiture proceedings and was disciplined by the Wyoming State Bar for violating this rule as well as Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 and 3.2, the court granted the attorney’s motion for summary judgment in the client’s legal malpractice case, because the client had not designated an expert witness by the time required by the scheduling order and the client could not prove proximate cause without expert witnesses. Wayt v. Miller, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26312 (D. Wyo. Nov. 21, 2002), aff’d, 64 Fed. Appx. 697, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8519 (10th Cir. Wyo. 2003). Suspension. — Where an attorney failed to diligently pursue two matters, one of which resulted in a default judgment being entered against a client, failed to return documents, and failed to return phone calls, he was suspended for one year for violating Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. McLaughlin, 2006 WY 67, 136 P.3d 158, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 70 (Wyo. 2006). Attorney agreed to suspension for violating Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, and 3.4(c) because the attorney knowingly failed to perform services for his clients that could have injured them and he violated court orders that potentially injured or interfered with his client, a party or a legal proceeding. The attorney failed to appear at certain court hearings, failed to provide discovery, failed to file appropriate documents for his clients, and failed to communicate with his clients. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Cannon, 2008 WY 82, 189 P.3d 857, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 89 (Wyo. 2008). In disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court of Wyoming suspended an attorney because he knowingly violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) while prosecuting a criminal assault case by failing to comply with the district court’s discovery order directing him to promptly request the complainant’s records from Facebook and a cell phone company. The attorney admitted he violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 3.2, and 8.4(d) by failing to respond to defendant’s motion to restrict testimony, failing to seek production of records as ordered by the court, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; the court considered mitigating factors, as he displayed remorse and was cooperative during the disciplinary proceeding. Bd. of Prof’l Resp. v. Hinckley, 2022 WY 18, 503 P.3d 584, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 20 (Wyo. 2022). Suspension of an attorney from the practice of law for six months was appropriate because the attorney misled and failed to inform a client in a divorce case of the trial judge’s order dismissing the case due to the failure of the attorney to submit a corrected proposed order and made entries in the case file notes indicating that the attorney had spent hours working on corrections to the proposed order. Furthermore, the attorney acted with knowledge, if not intentionally, and the client and the judicial system were harmed as a result. Bd. of Prof’l Resp. v. Osten, 2022 WY 137, 519 P.3d 326, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 140 (Wyo. 2022). Suspension of an attorney from the practice of law for three years was appropriate because the attorney failed to respond to inquiries from the client, the client’s insurer, and opposing counsel; failed to conduct discovery; and failed to respond to motions by the opposing party. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Jerabek, 2022 WY 134, 2022 WY 134A, 519 P.3d 309, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 137 (Wyo. 2022). Attorney violated committed misconduct because he failed to make initial disclosures within the deadline established under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 26; his delay was a violation of his obligation of diligence under Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3. Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Struemke, 2024 WY 112, 558 P.3d 540, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 114 (Wyo. 2024). Lack of communication. — Where the matter was before the court upon a “Report and Recommendation to the Wyoming Supreme Court,” by the Board of Profession Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar, the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15 and 1.4 by failing to respond to a client’s requests for information regarding the purchase of the certificate of deposit. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Fulton, 2006 WY 51, 133 P.3d 514, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 61 (Wyo. 2006), reh’g denied, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 76 (Wyo. June 6, 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 955, 127 S. Ct. 406, 166 L. Ed. 2d 273, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 7548 (U.S. 2006). Disbarment. — Disbarment of an attorney was appropriate because the attorney failed in one case to respond to a counterclaim and failed to respond to a motion for entry of default judgment, did not pursue one client’s medical malpractice claim, failed to communicate in an accurate and straightforward manner regarding clients’ cases, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, Wyo. State Bar v. Hopkins, 2023 WY 34, 527 P.3d 1219, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 34 (Wyo. 2023).