- For the Public
- Practice In Wyoming
- Admissions
- Events
- Nonmember Practice Sections
- Member Benefits
- A+ Conferencing
- ABA Retirement Funds Program
- ALPS – Malpractice Insurance
- Clio
- Cosmolex
- ELFI
- Enterprise
- eHome Counseling Group
- Expedia
- Gavel (formerly Documate)
- Hertz
- Identillect
- LawPay – Credit Card Processing
- Level 3 Communications
- MyCase
- Office Depot
- Red Cave Law Firm Consulting
- Solo Practice University
- Staples Business Advantage
- Verizon Wireless
- vLex Fastcase
- Lawyer Resources
- Well-Being Resource Page
- Attorney and Law Firm Risk Management
- Attorney Surrogate Designation
- Client File Retention
- Disciplinary Process
- Ethics Help
- Free Meeting Space with Video Conferencing Capabilities
- Judges’ Bench Books
- Law Office Self-Audit Checklist
- Mentor Outreach Program
- Notary Service
- Pattern Jury Instructions
- Planning Ahead: Succession Planning Guide
- Practice Sections
- SOLACE Program
- Trust Account Information
- Wyoming Lawyer Assistance Program (WyLAP)
- Wyoming Law Review
- Pro Bono
- Modest Means Program
- Join Lawyer Referral Service
- Board/Committee Expression of Interest Form
- Find a Job
- Post a Job
- CLE
- News & Publications
- Store
- About Us
- Members
WYOMING SUPREME COURT CENSURES CHEYENNE ATTORNEY
CHEYENNE– The Wyoming Supreme Court today issued an order of public censure of Cheyenne attorney Gay Vanderpoel Woodhouse. The order stemmed from a disciplinary complaint against Woodhouse that was submitted to the Office of Bar Counsel of the Wyoming State Bar by a Cheyenne couple whose LLC was sued by Woodhouse in 2020. The lawsuit related to a start-up business that operated a workout facility modeled on the Ninja Warrior television series. Two LLCs partnered to operate the gym via a third LLC in which the two member LLCs owned equal shares. Woodhouse sued on behalf of one of the member LLCs seeking various relief against the other member LLC and the LLC that operated the gym. Although the complaint was styled as something akin to a derivative action, Woodhouse did not comply with statutory prerequisites to bring a derivative action. The District Court for the First Judicial District (Sharpe, J.) granted opposing counsel’s motion to disqualify Woodhouse based upon a conflict of interest. Thereafter, Judge Sharpe granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit, holding that Woodhouse’s complaint failed to state a claim because it was not pled in compliance with statutory prerequisites to bring a derivative action.
Once the underlying litigation resolved, the Office of Bar Counsel proceeded with investigation of the disciplinary complaint and concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that Woodhouse violated Rule 1.7 (concurrent client conflict of interest), Rule 3.1 (asserting a claim lacking factual or legal basis) and Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Board of Professional Responsibility, with the hearing panel finding that Woodhouse violated Rule 1.7 and Rule 3.1 but not Rule 8.4(d). The hearing panel submitted a report of its findings to the Wyoming Supreme Court along with a recommendation for issuance of a public censure to Woodhouse.
In approving and adopting the BPR’s report and recommendation, the Court ordered Woodhouse to pay an administrative fee of $750.00 and costs of $50.00 to the Wyoming State Bar.
Share on Social Media