337 P.3d 401
Wyo.2014Background
- Laurence W. Stinson, partner at Bonner Stinson, P.C., represented Dr. John Schneider in federal litigation concerning a defamatory flyer distributed about Dr. Jimmie Biles; evidence later linked Schneider to the flyer and to coaching/payments to the flyer distributor, Lisa Fallon.
- Stinson reviewed discovery and Fallon’s interrogatory responses and received the “laundry room documents” (LRDs) showing scripted testimony and promises of payment; Schneider admitted drafting the LRDs but denied paying Fallon.
- Despite these materials, Stinson signed and filed an Answer and Counterclaim for the Schneiders containing (a) denials of Schneider’s involvement and (b) detailed, damaging allegations about Biles’ character and conduct; a press release publicized those claims.
- The Wyoming State Bar filed formal charges alleging violations of Rules 3.3 and 3.1(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct; the Board found a Rule 3.1(c) violation but dismissed the Rule 3.3 charge and recommended a public reprimand and costs.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court independently reviewed the record, upheld the Board’s finding that Stinson violated Rule 3.1(c), affirmed limitation on his expert testimony, imposed a public censure, and ordered payment of costs and an administrative fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stinson violated Rule 3.1(c) by filing pleadings he lacked a good-faith factual basis for and/or filed for improper purpose | Bar: Stinson filed and signed allegations (including Paragraphs 38(a), 43(b), 54) despite having evidence (LRDs, discovery, concerns from Fallon’s counsel) that raised serious questions about Schneider’s conduct; pleadings were used to embarrass Biles | Stinson: relied on Fallon’s deposition and other discovery that supported the pleadings; acted zealously for client and did not knowingly violate Rule 3.1(c) | Court: clear and convincing evidence supports Rule 3.1(c) violation as to pleading false or improperly motivated allegations; violation sustained (public censure) |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove the Rule 3.1(c) violation | Bar: no expert required because Rule 3.1(c) sets an objective standard and record sufficed | Stinson: needed experts to opine that his conduct was ethically permissible | Held: expert testimony not required; Board did not abuse discretion in limiting experts from testifying on the ultimate legal conclusion |
| Whether the Board abused discretion in limiting Stinson’s experts from opining on ultimate legal question (violation of Rule 3.1(c)) | Stinson: exclusion prevented presentation of essential opinion that he complied with ethics rules | Bar: legal conclusion is for the trier of fact; experts may explain context but not decide law | Held: Board reasonably limited experts to background and context; exclusion of legal-conclusion testimony was proper |
| Appropriate sanction and costs; Rule 11 motion for sanctions | Bar: public censure and costs appropriate given duty violated, negligent/knowing mental state, harm, and aggravating/mitigating factors; Rule 11 motion baseless | Stinson: if violation found, private reprimand only; Rule 11 sanctions against Bar unfounded; costs should be reduced/apportioned | Held: public censure appropriate (mitigating: clean record, reputation; aggravating: experience and partial refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing); costs awarded; Rule 11 motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Casper, 318 P.3d 790 (Wyo. 2014) (describing purposes and review scope of attorney disciplinary proceedings)
- Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Davidson, 205 P.3d 1008 (Wyo. 2009) (Court reviews Board findings but makes independent determination)
- Mendicino v. Whitchurch, 565 P.2d 460 (Wyo. 1977) (Board as arm of Court; Board compiles record and recommends)
- Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931 (Wyo. 2000) (expert testimony required where record lacks standards against which to judge professional conduct)
- Billings v. Wyo. Bd. of Outfitters & Prof’l Guides, 88 P.3d 455 (Wyo. 2004) (expert testimony not required when violation and standards are within court’s knowledge)
- Penny v. State ex rel. Wyo. Mental Health Professions Licensing Bd., 120 P.3d 152 (Wyo. 2005) (no expert required where statutory standards are identified and facts establish violation)
- Ruby Drilling Co., Inc. v. Duncan Oil Co., Inc., 47 P.3d 964 (Wyo. 2002) (trial court may exclude expert testimony that invades legal questions; contract construction as example)