Rule 8.4 Misconduct

Rule Text

Amendment history: Amended February 7, 1997, effective April 23, 1997; amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. Public censure appropriate for alteration of documents. — Where an attorney altered dates on documents filed with the court, and notarized a document with a false date, public censure was appropriate discipline. Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyo. State Bar v. McLeod, 804 P.2d 42, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 6 (Wyo. 1991). Public censure appropriate for misleading client regarding billing. — Attorney received a public censure for a violation of Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct. 8.4(c) where the attorney hired an independent associate counsel to work on an appellate brief; the attorney paid the associate $85 per hour, but then charged the client his fee of $250 without telling the client that he did not personally perform the work. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Mulligan, 2007 WY 100, 162 P.3d 468, 2007 Wyo. LEXIS 109 (Wyo. 2007). Felonies committed while practicing law warrant disbarment. — The conviction of five felonies arising from activities pursued in the practice of law, which conduct involved the preparation and use of forged instruments as trial evidence, warranted disbarment. Board of Professional Responsibility v. Neilson, 816 P.2d 120, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 122 (Wyo. 1991). The conviction of three felonies arising from activities pursued in the practice of law, which conduct involved the misapplication of funds, false entry in bank records and obstruction of justice, warranted disbarment. Board of Professional Responsibility v. Vidakovich, 816 P.2d 885, 1991 Wyo. LEXIS 140 (Wyo. 1991). Criminal conduct. — 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 1.2 (d), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) by counseling a client regarding how to unlawfully avoid tax consequences of interest earned from the settlement monies. 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). Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months where he violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) by engaging in criminal conduct, aiding and abetting delivery of a controlled substance. In re Ingram, 2010 WY 131, 239 P.3d 647, 2010 Wyo. LEXIS 139 (Wyo. 2010). In a case where an attorney violated paragraphs (b), (c), (d) of this rule, disbarment was recommended where there were both aggravating and mitigating factors present. The attorney engaged in serious criminal conduct by committing forgery, which adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. In re Barnes, 2012 Wyo. LEXIS 176 (Wyo. Dec. 3, 2012). Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for six months, which was stayed in favor of six months probation, where his drink driving arrest violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), he acted with conscious awareness of the nature and attendant circumstances of the conduct that led to his arrest, and there was the potential for serious injury to the attorney and members of the public. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Jenkins, 2016 WY 64, 376 P.3d 477, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 73 (Wyo. 2016). Attorney was disbarred because he was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses, a felony, and official misconduct, a misdemeanor, the conviction met the definition of a “serious crime,” and the attorney and Bar Counsel agreed and stipulated that the sanction include a provision that in the event the attorney prevailed in the pending appeal of his criminal convictions, he would be eligible to petition for reinstatement to the Bar. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Bohling, 2016 WY 83, 377 P.3d 792, 2016 Wyo. LEXIS 92 (Wyo. 2016). Disbarment for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. — Suspended attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and was disbarred after he agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 35-7-1059(a)(ii) and 35-7-1031(a)(i) and being sentenced to five to eight years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The board of professional responsibility was ordered to issue a press release consistent with that contained in the board’s report and recommendation for disbarment and the attorney was ordered to pay costs. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Strand, 2006 WY 118, 143 P.3d 351, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 130 (Wyo. 2006). Wyoming Board of Professional Responsibility recommended that an attorney be disbarred for violating Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) where he was convicted of using controlled substances, he had continued to use those substances contrary to a sentence on an earlier DUI charge, and he had attempted to foil drug tests by using someone else’s urine. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Albanese, 2006 WY 139, 145 P.3d 454, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 149 (Wyo. 2006). False accusations against judge. — State Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility proved that an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence, at least insofar as they related to the attorney’s false allegation that a judge participated in improper ex parte communications with opposing counsel; attorney was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two months. Williams v. State. ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. (In re Worker’s Compensation Claim), 2009 WY 57, 205 P.3d 1024, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 57 (Wyo. 2009). Knowing failure to provide required 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). Misconduct found. — 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). Misconduct not found. — Attorney who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit sales of unregistered securities was found not to have committed a criminal act that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Nor did he engage in dishonesty, fraud, or deceit; hence, he did not engage in misconduct under Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Elsom, 2008 WY 76, 187 P.3d 358, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 79 (Wyo. 2008). Disbarment warranted. — In an attorney disciplinary action, the Court, after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation and the file, found that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that the attorney should be disbarred for violating this rule. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Smith, 2021 WY 50, 484 P.3d 26, 2021 Wyo. LEXIS 58 (Wyo. 2021). 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). Court approved, confirmed, and adopted the report and recommendation of the board of professional responsibility, which found that respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of forcible sexual abuse and conditionally admitted these convictions violated this section; review panel reviewed the judgment and sentence, under Wyo. Disc. Code St. Bar 18, and as the convictions were for serious crimes, disbarment was appropriate due to the nature of the criminal conduct and the vulnerability of the victim. Bd. of Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Cantrell, 2024 WY 89, 555 P.3d 487, 2024 Wyo. LEXIS 91 (Wyo. 2024).