 |
| Laramie County District Attorney Leigh Anne Manlove continues to fight a disciplinary recommendation that she be disbarred. |
CHEYENNE – The Laramie County District Attorney has formally objected to a disciplinary panel’s recommendation to the Wyoming Supreme Court that she be disbarred. She argued that, except in one instance, the panel did not have the “clear and convincing evidence” required to show she violated professional conduct rules for attorneys in the state.
In a document filed with the state’s high court Tuesday, DA Leigh Anne Manlove and her attorney, Stephen Melchior, asserted that, even if the court did decide she violated rules, appropriate sanctions under American Bar Association standards would be things like “private reprimand” and “public censure.” Manlove rejected an argument that disbarment would not remove her from her elected position as DA, calling it “illogical.”
“Suspending or revoking the (Laramie County District Attorney’s) license to practice law while they are in office would effectively remove them from their elected position by disabling their legal authority to act as the (district attorney),” the response said.
The state Supreme Court oversees the Wyoming State Bar and its Board of Professional Responsibility, from which a three-person disciplinary hearing panel was chosen. The BPR is the hearing body for attorney discipline in the state.
The court will ultimately decide what consequences Manlove will face. This process may take several months.
Bar Counsel Mark Gifford declined to comment on Manlove’s response.
Formal charges filed by the Office of Bar Counsel last year with the State Bar alleged Manlove had mishandled the prosecution of cases and inappropriately dismissed certain cases, and that she created a hostile work environment.
Following the conclusion of the hearing, the panel announced Feb. 11 that it would recommend Manlove be disbarred, or lose her ability to practice law in Wyoming, for violating six rules of professional conduct. It filed its formal recommendation with the Supreme Court on March 11.
These rules were found to be: Rule 1.1, duty of competence; 1.3, duty of diligence; 3.3(a), duty of candor to the tribunal; 3.4©, duty to follow rules of the tribunal; 8.1(a), material false statements in a disciplinary proceeding; and 8.4(d), which says, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
The report also recommended Manlove be required to pay an administrative fee of $3,000.
In her response, Manlove rebuked the choice by the BPR and Office of Bar Counsel to hold the eight-day hearing at “the lovely and luxurious” Little America Hotel & Resort in Cheyenne, accusing the BPR and OBC of “sparing no expense” on meals and beverages.
“The Office of Bar Counsel’s willingness to expend (State Bar) resources in this way is outrageous, and no doubt done with full confidence and expectation that Manlove would be reimbursing (the Bar) in the end,” the response said.
The state Supreme Court has discretion over whether Manlove is responsible for reimbursing the Bar more than $91,000 in total for costs associated with the hearing and investigation.
The largest portion by far was $64,635.75 for lodging, meals, meeting space and use of audio/visual equipment. The Wyoming Room, the ballroom in which the disciplinary hearing was held, cost $1,200 each day – except for the two Fridays the ballroom was used, when the price increased to $2,600.
Manlove noted the “extraordinary” toll the almost year-and-a-half proceedings took on her life, and that the more than $91,000 requested for reimbursement doesn’t include more than a year of legal defense fees and costs.
Disregard of witnesses
Manlove also said the BPR panel “markedly discounted the testimony of Manlove and her witnesses,” and “gave full credence to to (Special Bar Counsel Weston W. Reeves’) witnesses but expressed distrust of Manlove and her legal assistant, Lisa Riggs.”
The DA rejected the panel finding she was “combative” and “defiant” during the hearing, as Manlove had been “under attack for more than a year by the time the hearing took place and was there to defend herself,” the response said.
Manlove added that she had taken responsibility, long before any formal charges, for failing to produce evidence in a timely manner in a 2019 case involving the defendant Rodney Law. She said this is the only allegation for which the panel has clear and convincing evidence.
“Manlove also apologized and took responsibility for her perceived harsh treatment of certain employees,” the response said.
She also reiterated arguments made in previous responses and during the hearing that she did not act improperly in her attempts to deal with proposed budget cuts by the state, or in her discretion to fire or hire certain attorneys and other staff members at the beginning of her tenure.She also asserted thatThe DA said there was no evidence to support the assertion that she’d directed cases to be dismissed because she wasn’t prepared to go to trial.
The panel discounted testimony by employees who did not support the allegation that Manlove fostered a chaotic or toxic work environment, the response said, while finding testimony that supported that allegation credible.
Contemporaneous notes by former office manager Amanda Santee were “improperly admitted,” following an objection by Melchior, Manlove’s attorney, that they only consisted of hearsay statements, according to the response.Manlove reiterated an assertion she testified to, that “she has multiple reasons to believe she is/has been the target of person animus of Mark Gifford, Bar Counsel.”
Contrary to the panel’s findings, there was “ample testimony” that a former deputy DA, Caitlin Harper, “had an interest in seeing Ms. Manlove removed from office” so she herself could take the position. Harper was the only person who spoke to a few Laramie County judges about alleged dysfunction in the DA’s office, save for a comment by former attorney Cameron Geeting that the office was “hostile and not working for me,” according to the response.
Gifford then seemed to solicit the assistance of Harper and other either former or soon-to-be-former employees to gather information on Manlove.
Manlove
wrote that, rather than bring concerns she’d heard from Harper to her
directly, Laramie County District Judge Catherine Rogers and other
judges decided to write a letter to Gifford. He used the letter,
“prepared (by the seven Laramie County judges) with the encouragement
and guidance of Mr. Gifford” as the basis of a petition filed a day
after with the Supreme Court to immediately suspend Manlove, the
response said. The court denied that petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment