2026 WY 30
Wyo.
2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Wendy Williams sued her former attorney Richard Gage and his law firm for legal malpractice after he refiled her vaccine-injury petition without including the 2010 vaccination claim she wanted added. 1
  • The district court dismissed Williams’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, leaving only negligence/malpractice. 2
  • The scheduling order required Williams to designate expert witnesses by January 15, 2025, but she missed the deadline and later sought extensions after her brother was injured. 3
  • The district court denied Williams’s extension requests and later granted Gage summary judgment because Williams had no expert on standard of care or causation. 4
  • Williams appealed, arguing the deadline denials, summary judgment, and privacy-act issues were erroneous. 5

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying deadline extensions? 6 Williams said her brother’s injury and pro se status justified more time. Gage argued she showed neither good cause nor excusable neglect. No; the denials were within the court’s discretion. 7
Was summary judgment proper on the malpractice claim? 8 Williams contended Gage’s handling of the petition was negligent. Gage argued Williams could not prove standard of care, breach, or causation without an expert. Yes; Williams’s failure to designate an expert was fatal. 9
Should the court consider Williams’s privacy-law arguments raised for the first time on appeal? 10 Williams claimed Gage violated privacy laws and Rule 5.2. Gage argued the issue was not preserved below. No; the court declined to consider the unpreserved issue. 11

Key Cases Cited

  • Jacobson v. Cobbs, 160 P.3d 654 (Wyo. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for denying additional time 12)
  • Hale v. City of Laramie, 580 P.3d 516 (Wyo. 2025) (defines judicial discretion and abuse of discretion 13)
  • Hutton v. Dykes, 575 P.3d 334 (Wyo. 2025) (appellate inquiry is whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did 14)
  • Utah Republican Party v. Herbert, 678 F. App’x 697 (10th Cir. 2017) (good cause requires diligent efforts and inability to meet a deadline despite those efforts 15)
  • Weber v. McCoy, 950 P.2d 548 (Wyo. 1997) (excusable neglect means conduct of a reasonably prudent person 16)
  • RDG Oil & Gas, LLC v. Jayne Morton Living Tr., 331 P.3d 1199 (Wyo. 2014) (strict excusable-neglect standard for genuine emergency conditions 17)
  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 155 P.3d 1041 (Wyo. 2007) (excusable neglect involves an outside force causing undue delay 18)
  • Matter of GP, 679 P.2d 976 (Wyo. 1984) (pro se litigants are held to the same standard as represented parties 19)
  • Hunter v. Universal Precast Concrete, Inc., 581 P.3d 686 (Wyo. 2025) (summary-judgment review is de novo and governed by Rule 56 20)
  • Scranton v. Woodhouse, 463 P.3d 785 (Wyo. 2020) (summary-judgment burden shifting and legal-malpractice proof requirements 21)
  • Kappes v. Rhodes, 547 P.3d 298 (Wyo. 2024) (elements of a legal malpractice claim 22)
  • Tozzi v. Moffett, 430 P.3d 754 (Wyo. 2018) (legal-malpractice elements and standard of care 23)
  • Moore v. Lubnau, 855 P.2d 1245 (Wyo. 1993) (attorney standard of care and need for expert testimony 24)
  • Dockter v. Lozano, 472 P.3d 362 (Wyo. 2020) (legal-malpractice causation and expert evidence 25)
  • Meyer v. Mulligan, 889 P.2d 509 (Wyo. 1995) (expert testimony usually required in malpractice actions 26)
  • Bevan v. Fix, 42 P.3d 1013 (Wyo. 2002) (expert testimony unnecessary only when common sense suffices 27)
  • Horn v. Wooster, 165 P.3d 69 (Wyo. 2007) (malpractice causation requires proof the underlying case would have succeeded 28)
  • Sharpe v. Evans, 570 P.3d 731 (Wyo. 2025) (issues not raised below are generally not considered on appeal 29)
  • Evans v. Sharpe, 530 P.3d 298 (Wyo. 2023) (appellate preservation doctrine for new issues 30)
  • Stevens v. Governing Body of Town of Saratoga, 566 P.3d 166 (Wyo. 2025) (fairness rationale for refusing to consider unpreserved issues 31)
Read the full case