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.
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.
