A Pox On Lawyer and Clients

The Wyoming Supreme Court imposed a nine-month suspension of an attorney who had sued a former client.

The court agreed with its Board of Professional Responsibility that the attorney had violated Rules 3.3(a), 3.4(c)and (d), 4.4(a) and 8.4(a), (c) and (d).

The attorney was found not to have violated Rules 1.8(a), 3.1(a), 3.2, 3.7 and 4.1.

The appended Board report notes that it was

troubled by this case. The Board believed neither Respondent, nor [the former clients] were credible in much of their testimony during the disciplinary or sanctions phases of the case. Bothe Respondent and [the former clients] lacked candor which raised the Board’s suspicion about the motivation of both parties throughout the proceedings.

The former clients tale of woe fell on relatively deaf ears

the board did not believe much of [the former clients’] testimony in which they painted themselves as victims emotionally devastated by the antics of Respondent. [They] were not vulnerable victims as they allege.

(Mike Frisch)