Rule 1.4 Communication
Client-Lawyer Relationship
Rule Text
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in 1.0(f), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, except that a lawyer appointed to act as a guardian ad litem shall be ultimately responsible for making decisions in the best interests of the individual.
Amendment history: Amended January 9, 2002, effective April 1, 2002; amended February 14, 2002, effective April 1, 2002; amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. 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). Conflicting roles of attorney and guardian ad litem. — As legal counsel to the child, the attorney-guardian ad litem is obligated to explain to the child, if possible, that the attorney-guardian ad litem is charged with protecting the child’s best interest and that information may be provided to the court which would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client relationship. Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 20 (Wyo. 1998). 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 1.3 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). Lack of communication. — Where the matter was before the court upon a “Report and Recommendation to the Wyoming Supreme Court,” by the Board of Professional 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). 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). 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 communicate with the attorney’s client regarding the case. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Jerabek, 2022 WY 134, 2022 WY 134A, 519 P.3d 309, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 137 (Wyo. 2022). 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). 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. In re Abraham, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 165 (Wyo. Aug. 27, 2009). 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).