Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
Advocate
Rule Text
(a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
(b) The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other court document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
Amendment history: Amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014. Counsel breaches duty where his statements dehumanize his client. — Where counsel’s statements had the effect of dehumanizing the defendant and accentuated the negative aspects of his client, counsel’s separation of himself from client in this manner was a breach of counsel’s duty of loyalty. Osborn v. Schillinger, 639 F. Supp. 610, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23167 (D. Wyo. 1986), aff’d, 861 F.2d 612, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14834 (10th Cir. Wyo. 1988). Knowing signing of inaccurate discovery disclosures. — Wyoming Board of Professional Responsibility recommended as the appropriate sanctions for an attorney’s violations of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct a public censure and payment of the administrative fee and costs where the Board found that: (1) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) by knowingly failing to disclose the existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment as required by Wyo. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D), (e); (2) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1(c) by signing Rule 26 disclosures when he knew that the information contained therein was not accurate and was not well grounded in fact, as it failed to disclose existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(D); and (3) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), (c), (d) by knowingly failing to disclose existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(D), (e). In re Stith, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 72 (Wyo. Feb. 4, 2011).