Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility v. Manlove
| Docket Number | D-20-0009 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 2023 |
| Parties | BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR, Petitioner, v. Leigh Anne G. MANLOVE, WSB #6-3441, Respondent. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Petitioner: Weston W. Reeves, Special Bar Counsel, Wyoming State Bar.
Representing Respondent: D. Stephen Melchior of Melchior Law Firm, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] The Wyoming State Bar (Bar) charged attorney Leigh Anne G. Manlove (Ms. Manlove) with violations of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law (W.R.P.C., Rule, or Rules) (LexisNexis 2022) for her acts and omissions while serving as the Laramie County District Attorney. A Hearing Panel from the Bar's Board of Professional Responsibility conducted a hearing and submitted to this Court a report and recommendation for disbarment pursuant to the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (W.R.D.P.) 15(b)(3)(F) (LexisNexis 2022). Ms. Manlove objected to the report and recommendation. Having reviewed the entire record, including the exhibits and depositions that were admitted into evidence, and considered the arguments by Ms. Manlove and Special Bar Counsel, we find Ms. Manlove should be disbarred from the practice of law in Wyoming.
[¶2] "[T]his Court has ‘the power, the duty, and the corresponding jurisdiction to supervise the conduct of all Wyoming attorneys, each of whom is an officer of the court.’ " Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 2, 503 P.3d 584, 592–93 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Meyer v. Norman , 780 P.2d 283, 288 (Wyo. 1989) ). Wyoming Statutes charge this Court with establishing the "practice and procedure for disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys." Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 2, 503 P.3d at 592 (quoting Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-2-118(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2021)). Attorney disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the Wyoming State Bar when Bar counsel files formal charges with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR). W.R.D.P. 13(a). Upon the filing of a formal charge, a hearing panel is appointed to conduct a hearing. W.R.D.P. 15(a)(2). If after receiving evidence, the hearing panel finds Bar counsel proved the formal charges by clear and convincing evidence and public censure, suspension, or disbarment is warranted, it is required to file with this Court a report and recommendation with its findings of fact and conclusions of law. W.R.D.P. 6(c)(4); W.R.D.P. 15(b)(3)(E).
[¶3] Inherent in this Court's power is the duty and authority to review a report and recommendation for sanction of a Wyoming attorney. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-2-118(a)(iii) ; W.R.D.P. 1(d); W.R.D.P. 16(a); Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 2, 503 P.3d at 593 (quoting State Bd. of Law Examiners v. Brown , 53 Wyo. 42, 49, 77 P.2d 626, 628 (1938) ). "The purposes of the state bar disciplinary procedures are to maintain the integrity of the bar, to prevent the transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute and to protect the public and the administration of justice." Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 3, 503 P.3d at 593 (quoting Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Richard , 2014 WY 98, ¶ 51, 335 P.3d 1036, 1051 (Wyo. 2014) ). "[T]he responsibility of this Court is not to punish, but to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law." Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 3, 503 P.3d at 593. We conduct our review with a focus on "safeguarding the interests of the public, the courts, and the legal profession." Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 3, 503 P.3d at 593.
[¶4] Our standard of review of a report and recommendation for discipline is set forth in W.R.D.P. 16(b):
The Court will give due consideration to the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Panel, but the ultimate judgment in proceedings under these rules is vested in the Court. Accordingly, the Court will examine the evidence, make findings, determine whether there has been an infraction of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct, and impose the discipline which the Court considers appropriate.
[¶5] We conduct a de novo review of all aspects of attorney discipline. Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 4, 503 P.3d at 593 (quoting Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Custis , 2015 WY 59, ¶ 36, 348 P.3d 823, 832 (Wyo. 2015) ). We are not required to adopt the BPR's report and recommendation. Id. Instead, we may make our own findings based on the record before us. Id. "We bear the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether misconduct has occurred and, if so, what discipline is warranted." Id.
[¶6] Our review is limited to the formal charge and those charges which an attorney was provided notice of the facts alleged to constitute misconduct and the alleged Rule(s) violated. Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶¶ 7–9, 503 P.3d at 594–95 ; W.R.D.P. 13(a) (). Bar counsel must prove an alleged violation of the Rules by clear and convincing evidence. W.R.D.P. 15(b). "Clear and convincing evidence is ‘that kind of proof that would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable.’ " Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Stinson , 2014 WY 134, ¶ 29, 337 P.3d 401, 409 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting In re SMH v. State , 2012 WY 165, ¶ 19, 290 P.3d 1104, 1109 (Wyo. 2012) ).
[¶7] We are not bound by the BPR's findings of fact, view of the evidence, or credibility determinations, "although we give due consideration to those findings ...." Hinckley , 2022 WY 18, ¶ 4, 503 P.3d at 593 ( State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Moon , 2012 OK 77, ¶ 6, 295 P.3d 1, 5 (Okla. 2012) ). The BPR made several credibility findings in its report and recommendation. After reviewing the record, we find no reason to depart from the BPR's credibility findings. Particularly, we find several of Ms. Manlove's statements were misleading and contradicted by the testimony, depositions, and the exhibits she admitted into the record.
[¶8] Ms. Manlove obtained her license to practice law in Wyoming in 2000. She was elected to serve as the District Attorney for Laramie County, Wyoming, and assumed office on January 7, 2019. Beginning in the fall of 2019, staff employed at the Laramie County District Attorney's Office (D.A.’s Office) began reporting concerns about Ms. Manlove's conduct to Bar Counsel and to the Human Resources Division with the Department of Administration & Information (Human Resources Division).
[¶9] More than a year later, on December 21, 2020, the circuit court and district court judges in Laramie County jointly wrote a letter reporting Ms. Manlove's conduct to the Bar. The judges stated they collectively witnessed Ms. Manlove refuse to fulfill her ethical obligations, and they believed the Wyoming Judicial Code of Conduct required them to report her conduct to the Bar for an investigation. The judges’ reported concerns about Ms. Manlove's conduct were two-fold: (1) her personnel management; and (2) abdicating her professional responsibilities. After receiving the judges’ letter, Bar Counsel filed a request for this Court to immediately suspend Ms. Manlove's license pursuant to W.R.D.P. 17(a). We denied the request.1
[¶10] Following the denial, Special Bar Counsel continued to investigate the concerns and filed two formal charges against Ms. Manlove with the BPR. The first formal charge was filed on June 11, 2021, and the second formal charge was filed approximately four months later. The two formal charges were consolidated upon Ms. Manlove's request. The Hearing Panel held an eight-day hearing.
[¶11] On March 11, 2022, the Hearing Panel filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation with this Court.2 The Hearing Panel recommended Ms. Manlove be disbarred from the practice of law in Wyoming. It further recommended imposing certain fees and costs. Ms. Manlove objected to the recommendation. The issue before this Court is whether Ms. Manlove violated any of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct, and if she did, what sanction should be imposed.
[¶12] In the two formal charges, Special Bar Counsel alleged Ms. Manlove's actions or inactions in Docket No. 34-280 (State v. R.L. ), Cheyenne Police Department Case No. 20-47759, BPR docket number 2021-005, BPR docket number 2021-039, Criminal Action No. CR 2019-1739, and in her personnel management and case management, violated several Rules. We find Ms. Manlove's acts or omissions in State v. R.L. , Cheyenne Police Department Case No. 20-47759, Criminal Action No. CR 2019-1739, and her case management violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(a), and 8.4(d).3
[¶13] Regarding Ms. Manlove's acts and omissions in State v. R.L , the Hearing Panel found she violated her duty of competence under Rule 1.1, her duty of diligence under Rule 1.3, and her duty of fairness to the opposing party under Rule 3.4(c) by failing to collect and produce evidence to defense counsel in compliance with a court order. It also found Ms. Manlove violated her duty of candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3(a) "by misrepresenting the reason for her failure to comply with court ordered discovery." The Hearing Panel further found Ms. Manlove violated Rule 8.4(d) because her failure to produce evidence resulted in the dismissal of State v. R.L. with prejudice.
[¶14] Ms. Manlove admits she violated Rules by missing a discovery deadline but claims she was already sanctioned through the district court's dismissal of the matter. Sanctions imposed by the district court for violations of the discovery rules are separate and distinct from any disciplinary action by the BPR or this Court for a violation of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. See generally Bd. of Pro. Resp. v. Chapman , 2007 WY 8, 150 P.3d 182, 183–84 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Office of Bar Counsel
...case is a must-read for every Wyoming prosecutor. --------- Notes: [1] Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Manlove, 527 P.3d 186, 240 (Wyo. 2023). [2] M. Marcus, "The Making of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards," Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 4 (Winter 2009). [3] "Ma......