Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Laurence W. Stinson, WSB No. 6-2918
2017 WY 58
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Laurence W. Stinson was suspended from the practice of law for nine months beginning March 7, 2016; suspension arose from prior disciplinary proceedings.
- Stinson timely filed a Petition for Reinstatement (served Oct. 27, 2016; filed Nov. 3, 2016); hearing before the Board occurred April 18, 2017.
- During suspension Stinson maintained bar dues and CLE compliance and did not practice law; evidence showed a continued internet presence but no proof it constituted practicing law.
- Bar Counsel did not stipulate to reinstatement, citing concerns about internet presence and adequacy of rehabilitation.
- The Board applied the former Disciplinary Code (in effect when the underlying charges were filed) and the character-and-fitness standards in Rule 401.
- The Board found Stinson had shown remorse, acceptance of wrongdoing, and sufficient rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence and recommended reinstatement; the Wyoming Supreme Court approved and reinstated him effective immediately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of disciplinary standard | Stinson: former Disciplinary Code applies (charges filed under it) | Board: parties stipulated former Code applies | Court/Board: former Disciplinary Code applies and governs reinstatement standard |
| Burden and elements for reinstatement | Stinson: meets clear-and-convincing burden showing rehabilitation, compliance, fitness, competence, and no public harm | Bar Counsel: opposed, citing internet presence and insufficient rehabilitation | Held: Stinson met the statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence; burden satisfied |
| Effect of continued internet presence | Stinson: online presence did not constitute practicing law during suspension | Bar Counsel: online presence raises concern about unauthorized practice and lack of rehabilitation | Held: No evidence that internet presence amounted to practice of law; did not defeat reinstatement |
| Standard of rehabilitation and certainty required | Stinson: need not prove absolute guarantee of never repeating misconduct; must show current moral/ethical fitness | Bar Counsel: urged caution and more time to assure rehabilitation | Held: Board and Court adopt precedents that require demonstration of current rehabilitation, not absolute certainty; reinstatement appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Professional Responsibility v. Stinson, 370 P.3d 72 (Wyo. 2016) (prior suspension decision relating to respondent)
- Board of Professional Responsibility v. Fulton, 370 P.3d 65 (Wyo. 2016) (governing use of disciplinary code applicable at time charges were filed)
- Reinstatement of Jones, 82 P.3d 1239 (Wyo. 2004) (definition of rehabilitation and standard that absolute certainty of future good conduct is not required)
- McKeon, 656 P.2d 179 (Mont. 1982) (authority supporting that reinstatement does not require guarantee of never repeating misconduct)
- Avila v. People of the State of Colorado, 53 P.3d 230 (Colo. 2002) (rehabilitation defined as restoration to a useful, constructive place in society)