Due Diligence
The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld findings of two ethics rule violations and publicly censured an attorney for misconduct in a real estate matter.
Lack of diligence in several respects
We conclude the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence Ms. Abromats violated Rule 1.3 when she failed to recognize the recorded deed for Parcel Two vested legal title in the Earls. Ms. Abromats did not review all the documents Curt provided at the beginning of the representation before deciding on a course of action. She did not conduct a thorough investigation into the status of the legal and record title to Parcel Two. Because Ms. Abromats conducted an inadequate investigation, she did not understand the status of the legal and record title of Parcel Two, and she failed to recognize the recorded deed for Parcel Two vested legal fee title in the Earls, the Patel and Rocky Mountain liens 10 attached to Parcel Two, and filing the quitclaim deed impacted her clients’ options. Ms. Abromats violated Rule 1.3 when she failed to conduct an adequate investigation, exercise sound professional judgment, and render practical advice.
And
We find the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence Ms. Abromats violated Rule 1.3 when she failed to search for additional liens. Had Ms. Abromats conducted an adequate investigation, she would have discovered the Patel and Rocky Mountain liens. If she had done so, she also would have discovered her conflict of interest earlier. Had she conducted proper research, or had a title company perform proper research, she would have realized the Patel and Rocky Mountain liens did attach to Parcel Two and filing the quitclaim deed would have an impact on the Ellerbee Heirs’ options for extinguishing those liens. Further, Ms. Abromats admitted she did not research the impact the Collections Professionals liens had on the property prior to recording the quitclaim deed. Ms. Abromats violated Rule 1.3 when she failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the liens on Parcel Two.
And
We conclude the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence Ms. Abromats violated Rule 1.3 when she recorded the quitclaim deed without her clients’ informed consent and without informing her clients of the effect of such action. Ms. Abromats failed to conduct an adequate investigation, exercise sound professional judgment, render practical advice, or fully inform her client before choosing to file the quitclaim deed.
Duty to communicate
We conclude the Bar presented clear and convincing evidence Ms. Abromats violated W.R.P.C. 1.4(b) by failing to inform her clients of the legal options available to them and the consequences of each option. Ms. Abromats’s testimony established she did not explain her legal analysis to the Ellerbee Heirs before switching course from a foreclosure to filing the quitclaim deed. As discussed in detail above, she failed to conduct an adequate investigation, exercise sound professional judgment, or render practical advice. In failing to adequately investigate the facts and documents involved, Ms. Abromats did not understand her clients had at least two, if not three, options available to them. Ms. Abromats did not explain the foreclosure and quitclaim process to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the Ellerbee Heirs to make an informed decision regarding the representation. W.R.P.C. 1.4(b). She did not explain the legal effect of filing the quitclaim deed, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives. See Ann. Model Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.4 cmt. The Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence Ms. Abromats violated W.R.P.C. 1.4(b).
Sanction
Ms. Abromats negligently violated Rules 1.3 and 1.4(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. The aggravating factors in ABA Standard 9.22(g), (i), and (j) apply. The mitigating factors in ABA Standard 9.32(a), (b), and (e) apply. Her failure to proceed with due diligence and communicate with her client caused injury to the Ellerbee Heirs. Public censure is the appropriate sanction for Ms. Abromats’s violations of the Rules.
(Mike Frisch)