Board of Professional Responsibility v. Jenkins

2011 WY 89, 260 P.3d 264, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 88, 2011 WL 3830889
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 2011
DocketD-11-0003
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2011 WY 89 (Board of Professional Responsibility v. Jenkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Board of Professional Responsibility v. Jenkins, 2011 WY 89, 260 P.3d 264, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 88, 2011 WL 3830889 (Wyo. 2011).

Opinion

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

[T1] This matter came before the Court upon a "Report and Recommendation," filed herein May 19, 2011, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar, pursuant to Section 16 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar (stipulated discipline). The Court, after a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility's Report and Recommendation, the "Stipulated Motion for Public Censure and to File A Report and Recommendation," the "Affidavit of Clay B. Jenkins," and the file, finds that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that Respondent Clay B. Jenkins should be publicly censured in the manner set forth in the Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore,

[T2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility's Report and Recommendation, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (without attachments), shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

[T3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that, as a result of the conduct set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Mr. Jenkins shall receive a public censure, and he shall be publicly censured in a manner consistent with the recommended censure contained in the Report and Recommendation; and it is further

[T4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 26 of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, Mr. Jenkins shall reimburse the Wyoming State Bar the amount of $50.00, representing the costs incurred in handling this matter, as well as pay the administrative fee of $500.00. Mr. Jenkins shall pay the total amount of $550.00 to the Clerk of the Board of Professional Responsibility on or before July 1, 2011; and it is further

[T5] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

*265 [T6] ORDERED that, pursuant to Seetion 4(c) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

[T7] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of the Order of Public Censure to be served upon Respondent Clay B. Jenkins; and it is further

[T8] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit a copy of this Order of Public Censure to members of the Board of Professional Responsibility and to the clerks of the appropriate courts of the State of Wyoming.

[T9] DATED this 1st day of June, 2011. By the Court:

/s) MARILYN S. KITE Chief Justice

ATTACHMENT

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF WYOMING

In the matter of

CLAY B. JENKINS,

WSB No. 52249,

Respondent.

Docket No. 2011-009

May 19, 2011

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Board of Professional Responsibility makes the following Report and Recommendation, with its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to the Supreme Court of Wyoming:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is a licensed attorney in the State of Wyoming, Bar #5-2249. Respondent has submitted an affidavit setting forth the following facts:

2. On two occasions, Respondent attempted to utilize a third person to communicate information to and/or obtain information from a person who was represented by counsel in a child custody matter in which Respondent represented the father. The attempted contact was not successful, and Respondent obtained no information thereby.

3. Respondent agrees that his conduct violated Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law, which provides, "In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person or entity the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order."

4. Respondent is extremely embarrassed by this matter, has apologized for his actions and will take steps in his practice to assure that nothing like this ever happens again.

5. Respondent has agreed to a public censure in this matter.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6. - Standard 2.5 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions states, "Reprimand, also known as censure or public censure, is a form of public discipline which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyer's right to practice. The commentary to Standard 2.5 discusses the proper cireumstances in which to impose a public censure as well as the rationale behind this form of discipline:

Publicity enhances the effect of the discipline and emphasizes the concern of the court with all lawyer misconduct, not only serious ethical violations. A reprimand is appropriate in cases where the lawyer's conduct, although violating ethical standards, is not serious enough to warrant suspension or disbarment. * * * A reprimand serves the useful purpose of identifying lawyers who have violated ethical standards, and, if accompanied by a published opinion, educates members of the bar as to these standards.

7. - Standard 3.0 provides, "In imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, a court should consider the following factors:"

(a) the duty violated;
*266 (b) the lawyer's mental state; and
(c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and
(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

8. Misconduct of the sort engaged in by Respondent is addressed in Standard 6.2, "Abuse of the Legal Process."

Absent aggravating or mitigating cireum-stances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving * * * failure to obey any obligation under the rules of the tribunal * * *:
6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes serious or potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding.
6.22 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that he is violating a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.
6.23 Reprimand [ie., public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential inter- .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 WY 89, 260 P.3d 264, 2011 Wyo. LEXIS 88, 2011 WL 3830889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-professional-responsibility-v-jenkins-wyo-2011.