Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar
2014 WY 98
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Wyoming Supreme Court suspends Andrea L. Richard for three years after finding multiple violations of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct across seven proceedings (Fields v. Waterhouse; Centennial v. AECOM; Big-D v. Starrett; Haden v. Bontecou Construction; Shindell v. Shindell; Miller v. Henderson; Dorf v. City of Evansville).
- Board charged Richard with violations including 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.3, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d); the Board found substantial evidence of misconduct and unnecessary expense/delay caused to clients, opposing counsel, and courts.
- The Court adopted the Board’s three-year suspension recommendation, concluding Richard acted with intentional misconduct in seven cases.
- Judge Waldrip dissented, urging disbarment rather than suspension, arguing the public protection requires harsher sanction.
- Bar counsel urged disbarment; the Court declined to impose disbarment, noting Richard has no prior disciplinary history and citing mitigating factors; reinstatement could be sought after 90 days before the end of the suspension.
- Final order requires Richard to comply with disciplinary rules, pay costs and fees, and complete CLE for new admittees before seeking reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Richard violate multiple Rules of Professional Conduct? | Fields and AECOM showed violations (3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 8.4); other cases supported similar violations. | Richard admitted failing to adhere to tribunal rules; conduct violated multiple rules across cases. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of violations across several rules. |
| What sanction is appropriate given the conduct? | Three-year suspension is warranted under ABA Standards for pattern of misconduct and harm to proceedings. | Disbarment or lesser sanctions proposed by Richard or others were not appropriate given mitigating factors and lack of prior discipline. | Three-year suspension appropriate; disbarment not warranted at this time. |
| Should there be aggravating/mitigating considerations affecting sanction? | Factors include substantial experience, pattern of misconduct, obstruction of disciplinary process, vulnerability of victims. | Mitigating factors include absence of prior discipline and personal/emotional problems. | Aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors; sanction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendicino v. Whitchurch, 565 P.2d 460 (Wyo. 1977) (discipline standards and board authority guidance)
- Casper v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 318 P.3d 790 (Wy. 2014) (limits on disciplinary discretion and standard of review)
- In re Clark, 613 P.2d 1218 (Wyo. 1980) (court-to-board role and evidence standard in discipline cases)
- Davidson v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 205 P.3d 1008 (Wy. 2009) (procedural posture and standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings)
- SMH v. State, 290 P.3d 1104 (Wy. 2012) (clear and convincing evidence standard in disciplinary matters)