Risk Update

Conflicts News — In Wyoming, Conflict Disqualifies Entire Bar Counsel Office, in LA, Joint Representation Conflicts Concern

Posted Dan Bressler

“Conflict Disqualifies Entire Wyoming Bar Counsel Office” —

  • “Andrea Richard moved the Review and Oversight Committee (ROC) to disqualify Special Bar Counsel Wes Reeves and the Office of Bar Counsel from prosecuting the pending disciplinary proceeding against her due to a conflict of interest. She sought the appointment of a new, conflict-free special bar counsel.”
  • “The ROC disqualified Mr. Reeves but declined to impute his conflict of interest to the Office of Bar Counsel. After the ROC determined there was probable cause to allow Bar Counsel to file a formal charge, Ms. Richard asked the hearing panel for the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) to disqualify the Office of Bar Counsel due to an additional conflict of interest that was unknown to her at the time she filed her first motion and because Bar Counsel used Mr. Reeves’s work product when drafting the formal charge. The BPR denied Ms. Richard’s motion.”
  • “We granted Ms. Richard’s petition to review the BPR’s order. We conclude the Office of Bar Counsel must be disqualified due to existing conflicts of interest, and we reverse with instructions to appoint a new, conflict-free special bar counsel.”
  • “During the investigation into one of those seven cases, Fields v. Waterhouse, Ms. Richard was briefly represented by Mr. Wes Reeves. Mr. Reeves’s representation consisted of writing letters to then Bar Counsel, Ms. Rebecca Lewis, asserting Ms. Richard’s conduct in that matter did not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Ultimately, this Court adopted the BPR’s report and recommendation finding Ms. Richard committed multiple rule violations when she forced opposing parties to file repeated motions to compel discovery, failed to comply with court orders to provide meaningful discovery, caused unnecessary delay and needlessly increased the costs of litigation, filed pleadings that were not well grounded in fact or warranted by good faith argument, made allegations in court documents that were not true, and made repeated misrepresentations concerning discovery and other matters.”
  • “In November 2022, Mr. Gifford informed Ms. Richard that Mr. Reeves and Ms. Anna Reeves Olson were appointed to serve as Special Bar Counsel in the present disciplinary proceeding. This correspondence indicated Mr. Gifford was aware Mr. Reeves previously represented Ms. Richard in connection with the 2014 Suspension, but Mr. Gifford determined Mr. Reeves did not have a conflict of interest and could serve as Special Bar Counsel. Mr. Reeves did not notify Ms. Richard of any potential conflict prior to accepting the representation, nor did he seek her consent before accepting the representation.”
  • “The ROC disqualified Mr. Reeves and Ms. Olson from serving as Special Bar Counsel finding Mr. Reeves’s prior representation was ‘either a conflict of interest, or at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest, such that Special Bar Counsel cannot continue on in this matter.’ The ROC did not impute Mr. Reeves’s conflict to the Office of Bar Counsel.”
  • “The BPR denied Ms. Richard’s motion to disqualify the Office of Bar Counsel and her motion for an order prohibiting the turnover of work product. The BPR found Ms. McCorkle did not have a conflict of interest under W.R.P.C. 1.9 reasoning: “the events that resulted in the 2014 [S]uspension and the 2017 [R]einstatement are in no way related to or in any way the same or substantially related to those at issue in this matter. The persons and the alleged facts are completely different and in no way related to earlier events.” For those same reasons, the BPR found Mr. Reeves “did not and does not now” have any conflict of interest that would require the disqualification of the Office of Bar Counsel or a restriction on access to work product.”
  • “The conclusion the current disciplinary proceeding is substantially related to the 2014 Suspension and the 2017 Reinstatement is readily apparent from the pleadings filed by Mr. Reeves and Mr. Gifford in this proceeding. These pleadings show all three proceedings involve the same client, are “relevantly interconnected,” and reveal Ms. Richard’s alleged “pattern of conduct.”
  • “Because the proceedings are substantially related, under our case law, there is an irrebuttable presumption Ms. Richard communicated confidential information to Mr. Reeves and Ms. McCorkle during the prior representations.”
  • “Similarly, Mr. Gifford sought Mr. Reeves’s appointment as Special Bar Counsel before meeting with Mr. Reeves to discuss any potential conflicts. Once Mr. Gifford became aware of Mr. Reeves’s prior representation of Ms. Richard, rather than seeking the appointment of a new special bar counsel, Mr. Gifford unilaterally determined Mr. Reeves did not have a conflict of interest and could continue with the representation. Because Mr. Reeves was not properly screened and Ms. Richard did not consent to him serving as Special Bar Counsel, we must impute Mr. Reeves’s conflict of interest to Mr. Gifford.”
  • “Once Mr. Reeves was disqualified, Mr. Gifford used Mr. Reeves’s work product to draft the formal charge he filed in this proceeding. Although we have not previously addressed whether substitute counsel can use a previously disqualified attorney’s work product, other jurisdictions have recognized once an attorney has been disqualified, transferring the work product of that disqualified attorney poses the same threat to the client’s confidential information, and it may be necessary to restrict access to the disqualified attorney’s work product in order to effectuate the purpose of disqualification.”
  • “Given the numerous conflicts of interest that have occurred in this proceeding, the only appropriate remedy is to remand this matter to the ROC with instructions to appoint a new, conflict-free special bar counsel and to prohibit the Office of Bar Counsel from turning over any of Mr. Reeves’s or Mr. Gifford’s work product. This means new special bar counsel will have to begin the investigation anew based on the four complaints.”

“Conflict alleged as Grossman uses same attorney representing DA defendant in Gascón office” —

  • “The headline-grabbing criminal case against a top aide to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has a potentially problematic connection to the ongoing Rebecca Grossman saga: the two high-profile defendants are using the same lawyer.”
  • “According to the deputy district attorneys who successfully prosecuted Grossman for second-degree murder in February, a conflict of interest could arise since Assistant DA Diana Teran was above them in the prosecutor’s office chain of command when she was hit with a charge of illegally using police data on April 24. “
  • “In a motion filed the following day, prosecutors Ryan Gould and Jamie Castro said Grossman should sign a waiver acknowledging a potential conflict before being represented in post-conviction matters by attorney James Spertus, who is also defending Teran. A hearing on the matter is set for May 17 in Van Nuys Superior Court.”
  • “The news about the Teran charge was still a month away, but there was already a wrinkle concerning Grossman’s latest lead attorney: he’s an old coworker of the judge.”
  • “‘Mr. Spertus is someone I know from the U.S. attorney’s office when I was a federal prosecutor,’ Brandolino said. ‘He’s not a close friend to the point where I think it would affect my ability to be fair in this case.'”
  • “Though he didn’t think the relationship required his recusal in the case, Brandolino considered it worth disclosing. ‘I’ve seen him socially in the past, I haven’t seen him in a while,’ the judge said. Spertus did not respond to a request for comment. He told the Daily Journal, a legal publication, that there is no conflict since he is ‘adverse to the People of the State of California’ in both cases.”