Gifford intimidation

COMMENT:  I was investigated by Gifford and I could not find an attorney to really represent my interests.  I called attorneys who advertise they represent professionals in disciplinary complaints.  I called attorneys my attorney friends recommended.  These attorneys all said or implied the same thing:  There is no fairness in this system and my two options were to do whatever Gifford said or represent myself because these folks were too afraid to buck Gifford.  I hung up the phone from talking to the last of these lawyers and it hit me.   Gifford created a system, and the Wyoming Supreme Court stood idly by, where we cannot get fair treatment.

E-MAIL RECEIVED

Bar Counsel Should Seek Fairness Not Wins

Wyoming Bar Watch:  No one is talking about the most appalling part of Gifford's conduct.  His desire to win above any attempt at fairness.  

For those paying attention you will read that Gifford takes extreme positions.  Gifford pleads many rule violations when the evidence supports far fewer violations.  Gifford seeks extreme punishments for most when the evidence is not so.  This is what he has done in both Custis cases.  Gifford alleged multiple rule violations and reportedly sought disbarment.    This is an old tactic Gifford used when he was a lawyer in Casper.  He would ask for far more than he should and allege far worse conduct but the jury, like the Board of Professional Responsibility, would split the baby.  This same tactic is sometimes used by criminal prosecutors.

Criminal prosecutors are intended to take this role.  They prosecute, defense attorneys defend, and a neutral as possible jury decides.  Bar counsel is not a prosecutor.  Bar Counsel is supposed to evaluate the case fairly and not for a win.  But that is not what Gifford is doing.  I've known Gifford for years and he wants only the win.  The facts are secondary or irrelevant.  When I read on Wyoming Bar Watch that Gifford helps pick members of the BPR my jaw hit the floor.  Not only does he work with these people day in and day out, he picks or nominates some of them.  Outrageous!  

Wyoming needs bar counsel who can be fair.  This job is not a win at any cost job but that is how Gifford treats it.  Think how stressful and intimidating this process must be on the lawyers and their families caught in the process.  For most lawyers the process is new.  Different rules apply.  Gifford and the BPR deal with these every day but the accused does not.  The accused is already at a disadvantage.  In my part of the state lawyers will not represent other lawyers in the disciplinary grievance process because of Gifford's small-mindedness and fear he will prosecute them.  

It makes more sense for Wyoming to appoint volunteer lawyers to do this job.  Or have a rotating group of lawyers.  To let one lawyer use this post to assert his view and position over the rest of us is flat out crazy.  The BPR needs more frequent rotation too.  To have one bar counsel and one set group of BPR members creates the very appearance of impropriety.



E-MAIL RECEIVED


The extreme punishments of the BPR.

The Board of Professional Responsibility recently issues a report and recommendation for the public censure of Frank Jones, a Wheatland attorney.  The underlying facts of leading to the censure are that:

- Jones was contacted by folks with a property dispute.  
-  The dispute was with a prior client of Jones and Jones thinks he told the new folks that he represented the other side but he offered to help and see if litigation could be avoided.  
-  Jones did not get any conflict waiver in writing.
-  After working for a way to resolve the dispute, Jones wrote the new folks that he could not represent them, that he had a conflict in that regard, and that he was in the role of negotiator.  
-  The injury to the new folks was delay.  The opinion does not say whether Jones billed the new folks but implies he did not.  You can read the BPR report at:  www.courts.state.wy.us/documents/opinions/2015WY114.pdf.  

Jones has a history of discipline.  He was disbarred in 1995, admitted to practicing law while disbarred, and later reinstated in 2004.  

The confusion for anyone paying attention is how did Jones deserve a public censure under these facts.  First of all, these so called ethical violations are what Wyoming attorneys do.  It does not appear Jones billed the new folks and he tried to peacefully negotiate a resolution for folks.  Jones might have needed to do a better job of disclosure and timeliness but, at worst, this conduct is a private reprimand.

The hard facts at this point are that the Ed Moriarity bar complaint and public censure had defined what conduct merits a public censure.  The short list is this:

1.  Filing more than one frivolous complaint; 
2.  litigating those frivolous complaints for years; 
3.  in a very public forum with lots of newspaper coverage;
4.  lying to bar counsel;
5.  misrepresenting the facts to bar counsel and to the court; 
6.  forcing the state to spend millions of dollars in defense and costs;
7.  admitting to multiple rule violations including 1.2, 3.1, 3.3, 4.4, 5.1, and several counts of Rule 8;  and 
7.  being unrepentant about this conduct 

EQUALS A PUBLIC CENSURE IN WYOMING.  Note:  you can read the Moriarity complaint in Arizona at:  www.scribd.com/doc/234055407/Ed-Moriarity-Bar-Complaint.

Its time for bar counsel, the BPR, and the Wyoming Supreme Court to issue consistent discipline.  If Ed Moriarity deserved the public censure then Frank Jones deserved nothing or at worse a private reprimand.  The high water mark for a public censure has been set in the Ed Moriarity case.  Other Wyoming attorneys deserve equal treatment to Mr. Moriarity.  The members of the BPR have clearly forgotten what it is like for small practitioners to practice law and are holding bar members to impractical and heightened standards.

RESPONSE:  Bonner is not the problem. The problem is Gifford.  And the BPR.  Gifford is, well, overly interested in female attorneys or all females. I don't know any other way to nicely describe it. The way he leers at me makes my skin shiver.  This is a man not at all fit for his role or for leadership.

Is Bonner the problem?

COMMENT:  Brad Bonner is part of the problem. He and Gifford were partners when I was in Casper. Bonner left because he knows Gifford's personality. But Bonner did nothing to find decent bar counsel when he was bar president. Maybe the new bar president can do better. Doubtful. All of us seem scared.

COMMENT:  The problem is not just Gifford, its also the Board of Professional Responsibility.  The lawyers on that board are guilty of the same things for which they punish others.  Hypocrisy for sure.  Gifford is a liar and dishonest and sneaky, but his masters overlook it.

A Broken Bar Counsel

The appearance of an ethically broken Mark Gifford at the Wyoming Annual Bar Meeting re-reminded me that somebody at the wheel better get the balls to shut his rampage down.  The man is out in public with Sharon Wilkinson and the entire bar and anyone paying attntion - like the press might someday -  knows the Wyoming State Bar not only tolerates a cheater but appoints him as the leading lawyer on ethics.

Information we receive is also posted to WyomingBarWatch.Blogspot.com 

Please note you can opt out of receiving e-mails from WyBarWatch 


E-mail
I am writing to add to the comments of the poster who discussed costs of defense.  Every attorney I have spoken with is concerned about Gifford's power.  One of those abuses of power is to harass attorneys over small, going nowhere claims until he decides not to pursue the complaint.  I have represented and consult with lawyers in the disciplinary process.  I know of at least three instances where bar counsel received or initiated a complaint that ultimately went nowhere and Gifford knew it when he initiated the complaint.  Still, he forced these attorneys to spend hours responding to his demands.  Any competent attorney would have known these  claims were going nowhere. But each of these attorney respondents had rubbed Gifford the wrong way in the past and he was out to punish them.  So punish Gifford did.  These claims never went to the Office of Bar Counsel oversight committee, the BPR, or anyone else.  Just Gifford with no supervision causing lawyers to expend hours explaining conduct that needed no explaining.

The other way Gifford is increasing costs of defense in disciplinary matters, and because of that encouraging settlement versus exoneration, is by demanding excessive penalties as the other poster noted.  Gifford demands an excessive penalty and then states he will not negotiate.  While the penalty is unfair and extreme for Wyoming, the attorney respondent cannot afford the approximate $50,000 cost of defense and takes the penalty.  


E-mail
Wyoming Bar Watch.  Whatever happened to the Wyoming State Bar survey about Gifford?  I heard those responding were very concerned about Gifford's abusive conduct and his power.  The state bar never published the results of the survey.  Several attorneys I know were unable to complete the survey.  



E-mail
Dear Mr. Duncan:  I want to thank Wyoming Bar Watch for having the dedication to monitor what is happening in the Wyoming Bar.  I thought some proof of Mr. Gifford's misconduct would be illustrative.  I'd ask you to publish my email to the bar.

Last month, July 2015, a private sanction was issued to an attorney for representing himself and his wife in front of a zoning board and at the circuit court.  The attorney stipulated that he violated Rule 3.7 and Rule 8.4(d).  Rule 3.7 says a lawyer shall not act as an advocate at trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.  Rumor on the street is that Gifford initiated this action on his own.  Whether true or not, the greater point is that Rule 3.7 does not apply to pro se litigants, including attorney's who are pro-se.  The ABA Center for Professional Responsibility says: The advocate-witness rule would not prevent a pro se litigant (even a lawyer who represents himself pro se) from testifying and representing himself.  Look it up yourselves bar members.  Bar counsel knows this rule.   This lawyer did nothing wrong.  I submit bar counsel has engaged in unethical conduct by duping a lawyer into taking a penalty the ABA says does not fit.  I guess we know now why bar counsel wanted, and the Supreme Court gave him, immunity for his own misconduct.  C'Mon BPR, wake up!  Start protecting lawyers from bar counsel.  


E-mail
I am retired and have not practiced in Wyoming for 20 years but I wish you luck in your quest for justice.



E-mail
Thank the lord that someone has taken it upon themselves to watch Gifford.  Here is one that no one has mentioned.  Gifford asks his friends to be on the Board of Professional Responsibility.  Wait.  How can that be right?  Do lawyers get to choose they judge and their jury?  They sure do if they are Gifford.  Becky Lewis never chose members of the BPR.  Lewis has, what's the word I am searching for......ethics.  But Gifford thinks its fine to nominate and facilitate the nomination of his friends to the BPR.  Which way do you think those folks lean when choosing between some soul accused of wrongdoing and their buddy?

Worse yet, Gifford can investigate and punish members of the BPR and the new oversight panel for their misconduct.  He can also investigate and prosecute judges for their misconduct.  The very people that are supposed to serve as the balance to Gifford's check can be prosecuted by him.  How did the Wyoming Supreme Court ever approve such an inherently corrupt system?


E-mail
Take me off your list. I think Gifford does a great job. I've talked to him on the phone and he seems very down to earth, savvy and compassionate all at the same time. I'd have a hard time finding fault with what he does, knowing as I do that nobody likes him much for it. So go bark elsewhere.



E-mail

You must be young.  What you are talking about is the justice system in America.  Our prisons are full of innocent people who copped to a plea rather than risk a trial and a harsher sentence.  Those with money, connections and power can and do get away with all sorts of wrong-doing.  There is nothing fair or equitable about it, but it is the way it is.  You're spitting into the wind and if you don't watch out, you will end up as jaded as I am. 
 

E-mail
I think you should be more ethical and worry about yourself. Mr. Gifford is of the finest quality lawyer Wyoming has. I tried my first jury trial against him 15 years ago. There is not a more gentleman lawyer that I have ever practiced against. If you don't like the power his office has, then focus on the office and not the gentleman.


E-mail (We did write back to this gentleman that we just publish what we get so there is little value in this level of vitriol.  He did respond nicely.  We do appreciate his point of view.)

Bar "Watch", the person who continues to hide behind a hateful little mask:

It is easy to just nakedly gouge someone when you are "cloaked".  If you were not a coward, you would identify yourself.  We have discussed this before.  Your identity goes to your motivations when levelling such serious charges.  These are not just minor accusations but vituperative ad hominem attacks on an individual.  Such accusations should not be made while wearing a mask, like those in the world who now assassinate innocents.

So sorry that your spirit may have been crushed unfairly in the past, but when it finally grew back, it was made only of wood.  A lawyer, if that is what you are or were, primarily engages in helping people, not helping themselves or anonymously hating and attacking one of my fellow bar members.  If you are or were a lawyer, especially a Wyoming lawyer, I am hopeful you are no longer.  We don’t need or want you in our profession.

I have always preferred a disciplinary counsel that lets no lawyer off easily.  I have worked with bar counsel in Colorado and Wyoming to tighten bar disciplinary rules on multiple occasions.  As I earlier explained when I first requested you remove your childish mask, I have never met Mark Gifford but was impressed that his office called multiple meetings to get more attorney involvement in the recent updates to our disciplinary rules.  In participating in these meetings, I found Mr. Gifford to be bright, courteous, patient and professional.  That personal knowledge is the basis of my judgment of any man or woman; it would never be made on the hearsay of unproven accusations from behind petty little masks like yours. 

Short story—In the early 90s, I joined the Colorado Bar Association (non-integrated bar) Grievance Policy Committee to continue trying to rid our profession of bad practitioners and unprofessional lawyers.  I resigned after the second meeting when I learned that 95% of the lawyers on the Committee were attorneys with prior discipline histories that were only on the Committee to loosen the rules and allow for further shenanigans.  Following and “living” the ethical and disciplinary rules is the natural act of a good lawyer, but when it does not happen, we need strong and impartial methods to force either compliance or a hasty exit for outliers.

As far as specifically commenting on your latest circulation, I clearly agree with e-mail # 1.  Feel free to publish my comment in your blog.  I suggest re-naming your silly, little operation, “the Wyoming Bar Gawker.”  It is far more fitting for the malodorous spittle that churns from your mouth.

Note again that I have appended my name and continue to take pride in being a Wyoming lawyer.

To

rdmail1122@yahoo.com

May 27

I see that Mark Giffold is at it again with favoring select attorneys. In 2012 attorney Custis, a state public defender, bribed a victim/witness and received only a public censure. In 2015 Custis lied to the Supreme Court and again received only a public censure. Gifford's treatment of Custis and Moriarty (as recently commented upon) seems to be quite favorable and lenient compared to the treatment of other attorneys, particularly female attorneys. Are these two maybe friends and buddies of Gifford's and therefore afforded special treatment? Or do they receive special treatment simply because they are male? It will be interesting to see what Gifford does with the state's attorney charged with taking county property. That attorney is male, influential, and from one of the larger Wyoming communities. But, on the other hand, he is a prosecutor and Gifford appears to dislike those people. How will that attorney fare in Gifford's "Court of Favoritism For Those He Likes"? And, one of his BFFs is now a prosecutor; how will that male attorney fare if ever grieved? Will Gifford call conflict upon himself in that matter? Likely not!

Gifford's tactics and results are not consistent, nor fair. Is this the guy you attorneys want judging you? Be done with him and implement a fair system where more than just one guy has all the power.

• Design a system where attorney actions are actually investigated by an independent attorney/investigator and then brought to the state bar counsel for yet another independent review.
• Look to a system where there are three to five people who serve as start bar counsel, not just one guy.
• State bar counsel should have an oversight committee - but not one he hand-picks and/or only sometimes consults.
• The appellate court should not pay his salary. How is that system unbiased towards any attorney charged with misconduct? Even criminal defendants have a better system than the attorneys.

Does it take a non-attorney to see these conflicts and the impropriety? State bar counsel should be fair, not swayed by friends or those in power. State bar counsel should be held to a higher standard; Gifford is definitely not. He has shown his preferential treatment toward certain attorneys or firms and his obvious disdain for female attorneys. He should not be allowed to wreak this havoc on attorneys in our state. From an outsider's viewpoint, it appears the state bar association leadership is also somewhat corrupt, both morally and ethically, to condone such behavior from one of its own. The rank and file attorneys of the association have to pay more attention to the overall management of the State's legal system. Right now it would be awfully difficult to claim Wyoming's bar association has a sound reputation - or the public's faith and trust.

Your situation as seen by an outsider,

SomeOldGuy

Comment Received

We are a group of Wyoming attorneys that are troubled by the recent state of discipline in Wyoming.  We are also troubled by the decision to appoint Mark Gifford to handle discipline, and more troubled by the decision to retain him in that position after real concerns regarding his conduct have been raised.  In addition to local anecdotal incidents shared by members of the bar, the conduct and allegations cataloged in the website, www.tryrannyofthebar.org, have pushed us to write this email and collectively ask you to fix the problems with the Wyoming State Bar Disciplinary System before those problems increase, which they are bound to do.

We are a small state with a small attorney population.   Despite that, we fear that Justices on the Wyoming Supreme Court, volunteer attorneys on the Board of Professional Responsibility, and volunteers on the Peer Review Panel may be out of touch with the prevailing concern of Wyoming bar members over bar counsel's behavior and the escalating spectrum of attorney discipline.  We say out of touch, but we do not believe the court, the BPR, and the PRP are  ignorant of the problem.   The last three issues of the Wyoming Lawyer have all offered articles defending the conduct of bar counsel and offering explanations for why the rapid increase in attorney discipline makes sense.  The bar issued a response to the anonymous emails sent to the bar members regarding Gifford, there are two blogs dedicated to airing concerns with bar counsel, and now the latest concern comes from www.tyrannyofthebar.org.  The explanations of the state bar and the over-explaining by the court of the reasons to assert jurisdiction over out of state lawyers in the latest disciplinary case, BPR v. Brimley, will not remove the concerns Wyoming attorneys have with discipline and with bar counsel because their concerns are valid.   

The incidence of discipline has increased.  That alone would garner the attention of most attorneys.  The increase in frequency of discipline is not the only or greatest concern.  More troubling is the increase in severity of discipline along with the increase in inconsistency of discipline.  The discipline of Ed Moriarity proves this point.  According to the Arizona decision, Moriarity intentionally engaged in fraud, knowingly filed pleadings without a basis in fact, and caused opposing parties to needlessly spend $185,000 on legal fees which he and his firm  were ordered to repay.  Moriarity agreed to disbarment in Arizona.  In response to Moriarity's admission of this conduct,  the BPR and the Wyoming Supreme Court imposed a public censure.  We share the view that Arizona disbarment was too severe.  But in relation to the recent discipline meted out by Gifford and BPR, and then approved by the Wyoming Supreme Court the public censure of Moriarity is irreconcilable.  Sheridan attorney Clay Jenkins appeared in court under the influence of alcohol.  He admitted his conduct and received a one year suspension.  Casper attorney Stacy Casper admitted to overcharging a client who failed to pay her and received a thirty day suspension.  Cheyenne lawyer William Bagley was found to have engaged in six rule violations, none of which caused financial harm near that caused by Moriarity and received a 90 day suspension.  In contrast, Moriarity engaged in willful misconduct, fraud, caused phenomenal disruption of people's lives, caused $185,000 in needless fees and received a public censure.  Moriarity's discipline may be appropriate, but if so the other discipline was wildly severe.  

The point of this being that bar counsel can guide and control the discipline process. Moriarity was charged by bar counsel with a single violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1.  A lawyer not on good terms with Gifford would have also been charged with a violation of Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Court) and 8.4(c) (misconduct and fraud.)  If you actually read the Arizona opinions and news stories, you will conclude the conduct of Moriarity was no less severe in many regards than that of Andrea Richard.  Richard received a 3-year suspension.  The only way to reconcile these diverse impositions of charging and punishment is that Gifford favors certain respondents and disfavors others.  The truth is likely that Gifford simply does not charge those he favors.   Attorney discipline should be designed to be consistent, provide guidance, and return the attorney to practice if that is their wish.  Attorney discipline should generally not be severe as most cases are cases where a mistake was made.  A mistake in process or judgement that any attorney could make.  At present, Wyoming attorney discipline suggests a police like state where lawyers turn in each other over conduct that should be corrected with a phone call and good and bad lawyers alike fear the power and personality of Gifford.  With the exception of Joe Teig's article, we have not heard one lawyer state the system is fair.  This is the system you have allowed to be created.  

While Joe Teig takes great effort to explain the supervision of bar counsel in the recent edition of the Wyoming Lawyer, you must  acknowledge that the PRP is a volunteer organization with remote oversight.  Each member of the PRP, and the BPR, is subject to inquiry and scrutiny in their law practice by Gifford and for that reason their ability to engage in genuine oversight of Gifford is circumspect.  That the PRP approved the filing of the formal charge against California lawyer Andreas Pour proves the lack of actual oversight.  To condone bar counsel's filing of this formal charge is misguided.  Mr. Pour is alleged to have counseled his sister on.... who knows what.  The essence of the charge is that he assisted.  He is not alleged to have signed any filing or pleading.  He did not confirm, in response to bar counsel's letters asking for information, that he undertook any act. Pour told Gifford that his interaction with his sister was a private matter.  In response, Gifford filed a formal charge.  If a Wyoming lawyer in general practice filed a complaint on such thin, or possibly non-existent evidence, his complaint would be met with a Rule 11 motion, a finding of sanctions, and likely the allegation of misconduct by bar counsel.  Gifford certainly does not understand what is meant by the legal term pleading and Pour correctly points this out to anyone who reads his website.  Gifford's conduct is beyond any logical explanation and it is unintelligent conduct from an intelligent attorney.  We have concluded, after deliberate reflection, that Gifford is not fit for the job of bar counsel and not likely fit for any job as a prosecutor.   He lacks the element of understanding and compassion to do the job.

Gifford was a good civil lawyer but in that arena he operated with checks and balances.  He could throw a fit with other counsel but a jury would not tolerate such conduct.  More and more it appears the PRP and the BPR give Gifford carte blanche to do as he pleases.  One of the commenters on the Wyoming bar watch blog said the BPR is a rubber stamp of whatever Gifford wants and it is starting to appear that such criticism is largely accurate.  Additionally, the attorneys who know Gifford shake their heads at the fact that a person with such an ethically checkered background is now in charge of supervising the ethical conduct of other attorneys.  The position of bar counsel is immensely powerful and Gifford can decide to charge or not to charge.  Gifford can craft the way he makes allegation and how he paints the conduct.  For Moriarity, he does so in a positive light.  For others, in the worst light possible.  Gifford takes the shotgun approach to charging respondents.  There are no checks and balances to who he decides not to charge and the conduct he finds unethical by one attorney he overlooks in another.

The inconsistency of discipline, the favoritism offered friends, the extreme punishment given to others, the stories and rumors of the misery bar counsel is causing in his investigations, and his targeting of those lawyers who do not subscribe to his viewpoint is appalling, shameful, and downright embarrassing to our state bar and nothing is being done by the BRP, the PRP, or the Wyoming Supreme Court to solve this problem.  The attorneys and public of Wyoming are not well served by ignoring the problems with discipline and bar counsel.  The outing of his conduct will increase and so will its publicity.  You are out of touch if you do not know that Wyoming attorneys are discussing the absurdity of wasting resources on charging Pour.  Attorneys will be dissuaded from practicing in Wyoming and the value of discipline will be lost because it will be viewed as nothing more than bar counsel's vindictive conduct.   If this conduct is not fixed, the Wyoming Supreme Court will lose credibility.

We are writing anonymously.  There was much debate amongst us, and to a measurable distance beyond our small group, with the penning an anonymous letter.  We dislike it.  We also, to the person, recognized Gifford's capability of vindictive conduct.  All of us know him.  Several of us have worked with and against him and we have witnessed what could be charitably described at petty conduct when he is challenged.  Our first version of this email had each of our names attached at the bottom.  That is the way we should be able to speak.  But it is clearly not the way anyone can speak about Gifford if they intend to remain free of the disciplinary process.

The Wyoming State Bar is in trouble and it is not the time for you to ignore it.  

COMMENT RECEIVED

An interesting Web Site has been put up and references this site.  It is www.tyrannyofthebar.org  The gentleman from California is a practicing attorney who helped his sister prepare a case wherein she was representing herself in a case in Wyoming.  The ever vigilant Gifford is now proceeding to charge him with practicing law in Wyoming without a license.  This is tantamount to me saying to my Mom regarding a traffic ticket I think you should plead not guilty.  It would be giving legal advice by Mr. Gifford’s standard.  The interesting question Mr. Poul posed is Mr. Gifford trying to justify his $150,000 salary by running up the number.

And here is another one from Mr. Gifford’s book.  Moriarty, his personal friend is disbarred in Arizona but not what is sought in Wyoming.  And yet I know of cases in Wyoming where a lawyer was censured and Gifford went out of his way to initiate a call to Bar Counsel in another state to seek to influence punishment there of the individual who held a license there as well as Wyoming.

This guy is not fit for his job and whoever appointed him ought to be ashamed.

COMMENT RECEIVED

Mr.Tieg is responsible for some oversight of what Mark Gifford does but when you look at some of the stuff put before the board you have to ask if he is really paying attention or just rubber stamping it.  It should be noted that Mr. Gifford is responding to complaints filed but apparently with little judgment. The issue is that this encourages people including attorneys to file complaints for trivial personal reasons.

COMMENT RECEIVED
It seems to me Mr. Gifford is doing what he supposed to do in responding to bar 
complaints.

NOTATION

A few letters have been received either making threats or using inappropriate language.  Please be reminded that items of this nature will not be posted.  And please note also that all e-mails received are vaporized after receipt.  There is no record kept of who sent information in. Thank you,

It is good that the State Bar responded and advised the membership of Mark Gifford's salary.   Wyoming Bar Watch hopes the State Bar is prepared to justify the need to pay Mark Gifford $150,000.   The State Bar did not offer any explanation or rationale for the extraordinary salary.  District court judges are paid $150,000 a year and supreme court justices a reported $165,000.  Why would a part time prosecutor job with the State Bar merit the same salary as a disctrict court judge?  The job of Wyoming Supreme Court Justice and Wyoming District Court Judge is rigorous. The job of bar counsel has always been part time, there has been no significant increase in the attorney population, and most targeted Wyoming lawyers appear to take stipulated discipline.  Other lawyers have suggested the willingness to stipulate to discipline in questionable circumstances stems from a lack of due process in the process.  Perhaps it stems from the Board of Professional Responsibility's refusal to reject the approach of Mark Gifford, even when that approach is overly agressive.

It makes more sense to have one lawyer investigate the alleged misconduct and another lawyer to prosecute that misconduct -- on a case by case basis. This is the system that Colorado employs.  Wyoming Bar Watch mentions the Colorado system as Mark Gifford points to that state's system as one after which Wyoming should model itself.

The idea that no other qualified candidates applied for the job is not believable for the reason that every Wyomign attorney knows one or two other attorneys that applied for the job and were willing to take a lesser salary.  Something is definitely fishy.

Finally, if the Wyoming State Bar is going to offer explanations to questions raised about the conduct of Mark Gifford, it may wish to do so through someone other than Ms. Sharon Wilkerson.  The scandal surrounding their relationship removes credibility from any response.  Perhaps that scandal is rumor, but it exists.

The Wyoming State Bar did respond to the latest inquiry to advise that Mark Gifford's salary is $150,000.  The bar failed to explain any expense accounts or benefits.  It is noteworthy that the salary of Mr. Gifford is the same as a sitting district court judge and only $15,000 less than a supreme court justice.  The need for a  prosecutor of Wyoming lawyers to receive such an extraordinary salary was not addressed by the bar.  The fact that his salary and the need, or lack of need, for full time bar counsel was not submitted to the membership in advance creates the appearance of sneakiness.

COMMENT RECEIVED
What is new is the desire to remove responsibility for acting in bad faith.

Facts

Please see the note below from BarExec. The grant of immunity for all involved in the attorney discipline process, including bar counsel, has been part of the Disciplinary Code for more than 10 years. In addition, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing the Wyoming State Bar grants immunity from suit to officers, commissioners, employees, and any other agents of the Wyoming State Bar for all conduct in the course of their official duties. In other words, the grant of immunity to Bar Counsel is not new.

markgiffordwybar:

COMMENT RECEIVED
“no other attorney in Wyoming enjoys such a benefit. Wyoming judges, prosecutors, and attorneys of all types remain answerable and accountable for their conduct. ” and so should Mark. this is a hired position not an appointment to omnipotence.

COMMENT RECEIVED
Absolute immunity should not be given to Bar Counsel or any other public official. Prosecutors do have absolute immunity in many jurisdictions, and the facts of cases like Pottwattamie County (Iowa) v. McGhee show what a bad idea that is. In that case McGhee served 25 years in prison based a conviction obtained with evidence fabricated by the prosecution. When he found out about the prosecutors’ misconduct and tried to gain his freedom the prosecutor claimed absolute immunity and several years of litigation ensued focusing mostly on the immunity issue and less on the misconduct.
There are plenty of other examples of this sort of thing. We should always remember the wise words of Montestquieu who said in The Spirit of Laws, Book XI, Chapter 4, page 150 (Cosimo Classics edition, 2011): “…political liberty exists only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.”
Everyone who abuses power proceeds until they find the limits. Absolute immunity results in their being no limits.

COMMENT RECEIVED
Please remove me from this email list unless and until the authors are no longer anonymous and there is some semblance of something reminiscent of due process.

COMMENT RECEIVED

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No person, position or authority should be above the law or the people. I may be wrong, but I believe the framers of the Constitution sought to prevent any single entity, authority or person from having no oversight or check again their authority. Giving Bar Counsel about immunity is akin to absolute power. I beg the Supreme Court to consider the proposed amendment as being g offensive to this great state and the will of the people.
Best regards,

COMMENT RECEIVED

Please show me where Mark Gifford has absolute immunity in the new rules he proposes, please. Thank you.

Please see the note below from BarExec. The grant of immunity for all involved in the attorney discipline process, including bar counsel, has been part of the Disciplinary Code for more than 10 years. In addition, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing the Wyoming State Bar grants immunity from suit to officers, commissioners, employees, and any other agents of the Wyoming State Bar for all conduct in the course of their official duties. In other words, the grant of immunity to Bar Counsel is not new.

markgiffordwybar

Facts

markgiffordwybar:

markgiffordwybar:

Let’s find out more.  Post a comment or a question.

How much is Gifford paid for being Bar Counsel

The current Disciplinary Code (in effect since 2003) includes an immunity provision in Section 10:

Any person, official, institution, or agency participating in good faith in any act required or permitted under these Rules, is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise result by reason of the action and no action thereon may be filed against such entity. For the purpose of any civil or criminal proceeding, the good faith of any person, official or institution participating in any act permitted or required by these rules shall be presumed.

The immunity provision that appears as Rule 26(a) in the new Rules of Disciplinary Procedure currently under consideration by the Wyoming Supreme Court reads as follows:

Privileges and Immunities.  Communications to Bar Counsel, the ROC, or the BPR relating to lawyer misconduct or disability and testimony given in the proceedings shall be absolutely privileged, and no lawsuit predicated thereon may be instituted against any complainant or witness.  Members of the BPR, members of the ROC, Bar Counsel, monitors, or any person acting on their behalf, and staff shall be immune from suit for any conduct in the course of their official duties.

The proposed immunity provision was borrowed from Colorado’s rule which has been in place for many years:

Persons performing official duties under the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to members of the Committee and its staff; the Regulation Counsel and the Regulation Counsel’s staff; the members of the Bar and enlistees working under the direction of the Committee; and the hearing masters, shall be immune from suit for all conduct in the course and scope of their official duties.

The process of drafting the new rules consumed the first six months of this year.  The objective was to retain (but locate more sensibly) provisions of the Disciplinary Code that are working, and augment them with sensible procedures that are simply missing from the current rules.  The first draft was vetted with the Board of Professional Responsibility ( (BPR) and the Peer Review Panel (PRP) in early August.  Changes were made and presented to the Wyoming State Bar Board of Officers and Commissioners, who approved putting the rules out for comment to all members of the Wyoming State Bar in mid-August, with the comment period to close September 30, 2014.  Through August and into September, very few comments were received, despite the fact that a reminder email was sent to all members on September 15, 2014.  A September 29, 2014, expression of concern by a few attorneys prompted the decision to extend the comment period to October 24, 2014.  On October 16, 2014, Bar Counsel, Mark Gifford, presented a free, one-hour webinar on the new rules, for which nearly 500 members registered.  Following the webinar, numerous comments were submitted. 

On October 31, 2014, the BPR and the PRP (renamed the Review and Oversight Committee in the proposed rules) met by telephone conference call and reviewed all comments received in response to the proposed Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.  Several revisions were made in response to constructive comments from members.  With those changes, all members of the BPR and the PRP unanimously endorsed the final draft, and directed Bar Counsel to request that the Board of Officers and Commissioners forward the final draft to the Court with a recommendation for its adoption.  At their meeting held November 8, 2014, the Board of Officers and Commissioners approved sending the proposed rules to the Court with a recommendation for their adoption.  They are before the Court at this time.

markgiffordwybar

Welcome to Wyoming Bar Watch. This blog is created so that Wyoming lawyers and others may post their comments about Wyoming bar counsel Mark Gifford without fear of reprisal.

Reposted:  It is a larger issue with Mark Gifford than just immunity. The bigger issue is character.  Bar counsel is supposed to evaluate whether Wyoming attorneys are acting ethically. That is not possible when bar counsel's ethics are quite questionable or missing.

Reposted:  I am uncomfortable with Mark Gifford given his treatment of women.  He should not be bar counsel.