WYOMING COURT RULES

128 Disbarment for conspiracy to manufac- ture a controlled substance. — Suspended attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and was disbarred after he agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to manufacture a con- trolled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 35-7-1059(a)(ii) and 35-7-1031(a)(i) and be- ing sentenced to five to eight years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. The board of pro- fessional responsibility was ordered to issue a press release consistent with that contained in the board’s report and recommendation for dis- barment and the attorney was ordered to pay costs. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Strand, 2006 WY 118, 143 P.3d 351, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 130 (Wyo. 2006). Wyoming Board of Professional Responsibil- ity recommended that an attorney be disbarred for violating Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) where he was convicted of using controlled sub- stances, he had continued to use those sub- stances contrary to a sentence on an earlier DUI charge, and he had attempted to foil drug tests by using someone else’s urine. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Albanese, 2006 WY 139, 145 P.3d 454, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 149 (Wyo. 2006). False accusations against judge. — State Bar’s Board of Professional Responsibility proved that an attorney violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence, at least insofar as they related to the attorney’s false allegation that a judge partici- pated in improper ex parte communications with opposing counsel; attorney was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two months. Williams v. State. ex rel. Wyo. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div. (In re Worker’s Compen- sation Claim), 2009 WY 57, 205 P.3d 1024, 2009 Wyo. LEXIS 57 (Wyo. 2009). Knowing failure to provide required dis- covery disclosures. — Wyoming Board of Professional Responsibility recommended as the appropriate sanctions for an attorney’s vio- lations of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct a public censure and payment of the administrative fee and costs where the Board found that: (1) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) by knowingly failing to disclose the existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment as required by Wyo. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D), (e); (2) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1(c) by signing Rule 26 disclosures when he knew that the information contained therein was not accurate and was not well grounded in fact, as it failed to disclose existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reim- burse for payments made to satisfy the judg- ment as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(D); and (3) the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), (c), (d) by knowingly failing to disclose existence of insurance that might be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment that might be entered in the action or to indemnify or reim- burse for payments made to satisfy the judg- ment as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(D), (e). In re Stith, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 72 (Wyo. Feb. 4, 2011). Misconduct found. — Suspension of an attorney from the practice of law for six months was appropriate because the attorney misled and failed to inform a client in a divorce case of the trial judge’s order dismissing the case due to the failure of the attorney to submit a cor- rected proposed order and made entries in the case file notes indicating that the attorney had spent hours working on corrections to the pro- posed order. Furthermore, the attorney acted with knowledge, if not intentionally, and the client and the judicial system were harmed as a result. Bd. of Prof’l Resp. v. Osten, 2022 WY 137, 519 P.3d 326, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 140 (Wyo. 2022). Misconduct not found. — Attorney who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit sales of unregistered securities was found not to have committed a criminal act that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. Nor did he engage in dishonesty, fraud, or deceit; hence, he did not engage in misconduct under Wyo. R. Prof. Con- duct 8.4. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Elsom, 2008 WY 76, 187 P.3d 358, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 79 (Wyo. 2008). Disbarment warranted. — In an attorney disciplinary action, the Court, after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation and the file, found that the Report and Recommen- dation should be approved, confirmed and ad- opted by the Court, and that the attorney should be disbarred for violating this rule. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Smith, 2021 WY 50, 484 P.3d 26, 2021 Wyo. LEXIS 58 (Wyo. 2021). Disbarment of an attorney was appropriate because the attorney failed in one case to re- spond to a counterclaim and failed to respond to a motion for entry of default judgment, did not pursue one client’s medical malpractice claim, failed to communicate in an accurate and regarding clients’ straightforward manner cases, and engaged in conduct involving dis- honesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, Wyo. State Bar v. Hopkins, 2023 WY 34, 527 P.3d 1219, 2023 Wyo. LEXIS 34 (Wyo. 2023).