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.