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
