Rule 3.2 Expediting Litigation

Rule Text

Amendment history: Amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. 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 1.4, 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. — 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).