Board of Professional Responsibility v. Fulton
370 P.3d 65
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Jo Ann Fulton was admitted to the Wyoming State Bar in 1990 and practiced until suspended for three years effective April 20, 2006 following disciplinary proceedings arising from two formal charges (contingent-fee/mishandling client funds and communicating with a represented party).
- The Board found multiple misconducts: trust accounting violations, failing to provide required fee information, filing a meritless suit, counseling clients to avoid taxes, and communicating with a represented party; aggravating factors included prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, false testimony, and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court adopted the BPR recommendation in 2006 suspending Fulton three years and ordering payment of costs and fees, which Fulton paid; she subsequently attempted reinstatement in 2009–2012 but was denied in 2012 for failure to prove rehabilitation.
- Fulton filed a new Verified Petition for Reinstatement on December 14, 2015 and submitted a Stipulated Motion for Reinstatement supported by an affidavit and substantial documentation of compliance (fees paid, CLE current, community service, work with vulnerable youth, and planned practice areas).
- Bar Counsel reviewed the materials and met with Fulton; Bar Counsel recommended reinstatement without reservation. The Board unanimously approved the stipulated motion and recommended reinstatement to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed and adopted the BPR report and recommendation and ordered Fulton reinstated to the practice of law effective immediately (February 24, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility under Disciplinary Code §24 | Fulton showed payment of fees, CLE compliance, and filed required petition fee | BPR previously found deficits; but here Fulton asserts full compliance and remediation | Court accepted BPR recommendation and found eligibility satisfied; reinstated Fulton |
| Rehabilitation (clear and convincing standard) | Fulton asserted rehabilitation: acceptance of responsibility, CLE, mentors, work with youth, study of rules, no further criminal charges | Past BPR denial argued she had not identified or remedied underlying causes and produced little corroborating evidence | BPR and Court found rehabilitation proven by clear and convincing evidence based on stipulated record |
| Character and fitness/competence to practice | Fulton presented ongoing legal competency efforts (CLE, ethics courses, Social Security advocacy, planned juvenile practice training) and positive community service | Prior misconduct, false testimony, and pattern of violations raised fitness concerns | BPR unanimously recommended reinstatement; Court adopted recommendation and found character, fitness, and competence adequate |
| Public interest and administration of justice | Fulton proposed focusing on underrepresented client groups and to consult mentors and Bar Counsel when needed | Risk that resumption could harm public based on past misconduct and 2012 denial | Court concluded resumption would not be detrimental to administration of justice or public interest and granted reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Professional Responsibility v. Fulton, 133 P.3d 514 (Wyo. 2006) (original disciplinary opinion describing violations and imposing three-year suspension)