Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Corrie Lynn Lamb, WSB 7-5923

[¶4] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 25 of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, Ms. Lamb 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 $750.00. Ms. Lamb shall pay the total amount of $800.00 to the Wyoming State Bar on or before November 2, 2026. If Ms. Lamb fails to make payment in the time allotted, execution may issue on the award; and it is further

[¶5] ORDERED that the Wyoming State Bar may issue the agreed press release contained in the Report and Recommendation for Public Censure; and it is further

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

[¶7] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, this Order of Public Censure, along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

[¶8] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court cause a copy of this Order of Public Censure to be served upon Respondent Corrie Lynn Lamb.

[¶9] DATED this 21^stday of October, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

LYNNE BOOMGAARDEN

Chief Justice

2

IN

THE

SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF

WYOMING

FILED

STATE OF WYOMING OCT -§ 2026

SHAWNA GOETZ,

CLERK

In ^thematter

of ) ^byDEPUTY

CORRIE LYNNLAMB,

)

WSB # 7-5923,

)

DocketNo. 2025-109

:

Respondent.

D-26

0004

REPORT ^ANDRECOMMENDATION^FOR

PUBLIC CENSURE

THIS MATTER^camebefore ^aReview

Panel^oftheBoard^of

Professional Responsibility comprised of Hon. W. Thomas Sullins

(chair), Hon. John C.

Brooks^andBrett McPeak

for con- sideration of the parties'

Stipulation for Public

Censure

pursuant^toRules^{9and 12}of^theWyo- ming Rules of

Disciplinary

Procedure. The Review

Panel having

reviewed^theStipulation,^the supporting Affidavit^andbeing fully

advised^inthepremises, finds,

concludes^andrecommends:

Findings

1. Corrie Lynn

Lamb ("Respondent") was

admitted to the Wyoming

State Bar on September ^11,2017.

She

practiced law with

various Gillette

firms until 2022,

when^sheandher husband, Dallas Lamb,

formed

Shepherd Law, LLC.

2. In late October 2025, Bar Counsel was

copied on a letter to Respondent

from

the four district court judges^intheSixth Judicial District

admonishing^herfor failing^toappearⁱⁿ court, being late ^tohearings^andbeing unprepared. Bar Counsel

initiated ^aninvestigation

for possible violations of Rules ^1.1(competence),^1.3(diligence),^3.1(meritorious claims^andcon- tentions) ^and3.4(c)

(failure^toabide by^therules of^thetribunal (OBC 002)^andrequested^awrit- ten response by November^10,2025.

3. Respondent failed to timely

respond to Bar Counsel's

inquiry. On November 17, 2025, Bar Counsel

wrote^toRespondent again, reminding^herof^herduty

under Rule of

Profes-

sional Conduct 8.1(b) and Rule of Disciplinary

Procedure 8(a)^tocooperate with Bar

Counsel's investigation.

4. On November^18,2025, Respondent's

written

response was received

essentially denying any misconduct^{on herpartand}blaming^any

lapses^onamyriad of issues, including problems with

support staff. Bar

Counsel forwarded Respondent's

response^tothefourdistrict court judges and asked for

their thoughts ^onthematter.

5. Bar Counsel received a response from District

Court Judge

Stuart Healy, the first paragraph

of which

encapsulates^theproblem:

Thank you for sharing this. ^Isuspected^thatMs. ^Lambwould^{trytosay thatall}of this is ^duetoachange in personnel^ather office

because that is what^shehas told our JA's (they know better). That^isnot true. The court's issues with ^herhave ^been going on almost since^I

started^asajudge^herein

December of 2020.^Sheisfre- quently (and, incredibly,^evensince receiving ^ourletter of

concern)^latefor

hear- ings or fails to show^up.There^isalways ^anexcuse,

e.g.,^newcalendaring

soft- ware (I have

heard^thatonatleast

two occasions ^{- and}before^shelost^theemploy- ee she complains of), sick children, lack of

babysitter, car issues, getting

lost on the way to court in Newcastle two days in^arow

(ask Judge

Castano

about^that one), etc. On multiple occasions^Ihave^hadtopause court^toallow ^hertoconfer with her client

because^{they havenot}discussed^aprimary issue. There^{was atime} last year when, ^atabreak

during^adivorce trial, ^shethought it was

appropriate^to vape in ^thecourtroom ^{- a}choice ^thatwas

captured^onTeams ^andobserved by my staff

attorney. At^onepoint^wejudges ^weresoconcerned

about^whatshewas wearing to court, we^hadtohaveJudge Bartlett

discuss with^herwhat

appropriate dress is. ^It'ssimply

issue

after issue.

6. Bar

Counsel received^aresponse from District Court Judge Michael McGrady, who

concluded^hiscomments with, "Something needs^tochange, ^butIamconcerned ^thattheex- ecutive

functioning deficiencies^arebaked^inthecake. ^Idon't^seehowacalendaring ^toolorsoft- ware program ^canfix^anattorney who^isnotcapable of

being in charge of^heroffice^andcases."

7. On November 24, 2025, Bar

Counsel wrote^toRespondent, providing

Respondent with copies of^thejudges' feedback ^andsharing^theconclusion^thatBar

Counsel's

investigation

2

revealed clear^andconvincing evidence of violations of Rule of

Professional Conduct^1.3(dili- gence):

Taken together, these responses document^atroubling

pattern of

multiple viola- tions of ^theRules of

Professional Conduct by you. Your tardiness for

court, fail- ure to prepare your clients for court

appearances and multiple failures

to even show up for court evidence violation ofRule^1.3(diligence). Bar

Counsel proposed ^astipulated resolution of^thepending investigation^andrequested^are- sponse from Respondent by ^theclose of business December ^1,2025. Respondent failed^tore- spond.

8. On December 9, 2025, Bar Counsel received

an email from Circuit Court Judge Gregory Steward regarding something ^thathappened^thatmorning, ^whenRespondent failed^to appear for a hearing in circuit

court. Bar Counsel provided^acopy of Judge Steward's

report^to Respondent ^andinformed

Respondent^thatBar Counsel was going^torequest authority^tofile^a formal charge from^theReview ^andOversight

Committee.

9. On December 22, 2025, the Review and Oversight

Committee

issued

an order of finding ofprobable cause, authorizing Bar Counsel^tofile^aformal charge against Respondent. On January^2,2026, Bar

Counsel

filed^aformal charge against Respondent with^theBoard of Professional Responsibility (BPR).

10. Respondent conditionally admits, and the Review Panel finds,

that Respondent engaged in a pattern of

conduct^thatconstitutes^aviolation ofRule ^1.3,W.R.Prof.Cond.,

includ- ing:

e

Being late for court appearances

or failing

to appear; e

Being

unprepared for court appearances; e

Filing incorrect

or incomplete

documents; and e

Failing to timely

respond to questions/requests from

court personnel.

3

11.

provides that in imposing^asanction^forprofessional conduct, ^theBPR shall apply^theABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (the "ABA Standards").

Pertinent^tothepresent Stipulation, it is necessary^toapply^theABA standards relevant^tothedutyviolated^byRe- Determination

of the Appropriate Sanction Rule 15(b)(3)(D) of^the

Wyoming Rules of

Disciplinary Procedure (WR.DP) spondent as well as aggravating^andmitigating factors.

12. ABA Standard 4.4 sets forth the sanction guidelines for lawyers who

breach a du- ty of

diligence as required

by Rule^1.3.Standard 4.4 provides:

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, ^uponapplication of ^thefactors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally

appropriate in cases involving a failure to^actwithreasonable diligence^andpromptnessⁱⁿ representing a client:

4.41

4.42

4.43

4.44

The parties agree, ^andtheReview Panel^sofinds^thatinRespondent's

case, before weighing ^ag- Disbarment ^isgenerally appropriate when:

(a) ^alawyer abandons^thepractice^andcauses serious ^orpotentially serious injury to a client; or

(b) a lawyer knowingly fails^toperform services ^foraclient ^andcause $erious ^orpotentially serious injury^toaclient;^or

(c) a lawyer engages^inapattern of neglect^with

respect^toclient

matters and causes serious or

potentially

serious injury^toa client. Suspension is generally appropriate when:

(a) a lawyer knowingly fails^toperform services^foraclient^andcauses injury or potential injury to^aclient,^or

(b) a lawyer engages^inapattern

of

neglect^withrespect^toclient

matters and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Reprimand [i.e., "public

censure" under Rule 9(a)(3) of^theRules of Disciplinary Procedure] is generally appropriate^whenalawyer^is negligent and ^does

not^actwith reasonable diligence in

representing^a client, and causes injury or potential injury^toaclient. Admonition [i.e.,

"private

reprimand" under Rule 9(a)(4) of^theRules of Disciplinary

Procedure] is generally appropriate^whenalawyer^is negligent ^anddoes^notactwith reasonable diligenceⁱⁿ

representing ^a client, and causes little ^orno actual^orpotential injury^toaclient. gravating and mitigating factors,^thepresumptive sanction^isasuspension.

4

13. Aggravating

and mitigating factors. ABA

Standard 9.0,

entitled "Aggravation and Mitigation," provides^asfollows:

9.1 Generally After

misconduct^hasbeenestablished, aggravating ^andmitigating^cir- cumstances may be considered in

deciding what

sanction^toimpose.

9.2 Aggravation

9.21 Definition. Aggravation or aggravating

circumstances^areany consid- erations or

factors^thatmay justify^anincrease in^the

degree of

disci- pline to ^beimposed.

9.22 Factors

which may^beconsideredⁱⁿaggravation. Aggravating

factors include:

(a)

prior disciplinary

offenses; (b)

dishonest^orselfish motive;

(c) a pattern ofmisconduct; (d)

multiple

offenses;

(e) bad faith obstruction of^thedisciplinary

proceeding^by

intentional- ly

failing^tocomply^withrules^ororders of^thedisciplinary

agency; (f)

submission of false evidence, false

statements,^or

other deceptive practices

during^thedisciplinary

process; (g)

refusal^toacknowledge wrongful

nature of

conduct; (h)

vulnerability of^thevictim; (i)

substantial experience^inthepractice^oflaw; (j)

indifferenceⁱⁿmaking

restitution; ^and (k)

illegal

conduct, including^thatinvolving^theuseof

controlled ^sub- stances.

9.3 Mitigation.

9.31 Definition. Mitigation or mitigating

circumstances ^areany considera- tions or factors^thatmay justify^areduction in^thedegree of

discipline to be imposed.

9.32 Factors which may ^beconsideredⁱⁿmitigation. Mitigating

factors in- clude:

(a)

absence of^aprior disciplinary

record; (b)

absence of^adishonest^orselfish motive; (c)

personal^oremotional problems;

(d) timely^goodfaith effort^tomakerestitution ^{or to}rectify

conse- quences of misconduct;

(e) full^{and free}disclosure of

disciplinary board^orcooperative

attitude toward

proceedings; (f)

inexperience^inthepractice of^law; (g)

character^orreputation; (h)

physical disability; (i)

mental disability^orchemical

dependency including

alcoholism ^or drug

abuse when:

5

(1) there is

medical evidence ^thattherespondent^isaffected^{by a} chemical dependency or mental disability;

(2) the chemical dependency ^ormental disability caused ^themis- conduct;

(3) ^the

respondent's recovery^{from the}chemical dependency ^or mental disability is

demonstrated by^ameaningful^andsus- tained

period of successful rehabilitation;^and

(4) the recovery arrested the misconduct^andrecurrence of^that misconduct is unlikely.

(j)

delayⁱⁿdisciplinary proceedings; (k)

imposition of other penalties^orsanctions;

(1) remorse; and

(m) remoteness of prior offenses.

9.4 Factors Which

Are

Neither Aggravating

nor Mitigating. The following factors

should^notbeconsidered^aseither aggravating ^nor mitigating:

(a) forced ^orcompelled restitution; (b)

agreeing^totheclient's

demand^forcertain

improper behavior^orresult;

(c) withdrawal of complaint against^thelawyer; (d)

resignation prior^tocompletion of

disciplinary proceedings; (e)

complainant's recommendation^astosanction;^and

(f) failure of injured client to complain. The parties agree, ^andtheReview

Panel^sofinds^thatin

Respondent's case, ^theonly

aggravating factor

is

a pattern of

misconduct. Respondent ^hasimplemented

sensible

measures ^toguard against a recurrence of^suchmisconduct. The

parties further agree ^thatother mitigating factors include

absence of^aprior disciplinary record, personal problems ^andremorse. In

addition,^the parties agree,^andtheReview Panel^sofinds^thattaken

together, these mitigating

factors justify reducing the presumptive sanction for Respondent's misconduct^fromasuspension^toapublic censure.

13. Respondent

and Bar Counsel agree

and stipulate,

and the Review

Panel so finds that a public censure is

an appropriate sanction for Respondent's

misconduct. If^theCourt

issues an Order of Public

6

The Wyoming Supreme Court^hasissued^anorder of

public

censure of Gillette attorney Corrie Lynn Lamb. The

order stems^fromMs. Lamb's

conductⁱⁿ failing to appear at multiple hearings^aswell^asother violations of Wyoming Rule of

Professional Conduct^1.3,which requires^thatattorneys^{act with}

reasonable^dil- igence and promptness in representing^aclient. Following

Bar Counsel's

investi- gation of reports received from^anumber of Gillette

judges,^theparties

reached^a stipulation that Ms. Lamb^hadcommitted multiple violations of ^herobligation of diligence and agreed ^thatapublic censure^{was the}appropriate sanction^{for such} conduct. The

parties' stipulated resolution was

approved by^theBoard of

Profes- sional Responsibility (BPR)

of^theWyoming State Bar^andwas

submitted^tothe Wyoming Supreme Court. ^Inadopting^theBPR's

recommendation^forapublic censure, the Court

ordered Ms. Lamb^topay ^anadministrative fee of

$750.00^and costs in the amount of $50.00^totheWyoming State Bar. Recommendation

In

consideration of^theforegoing findings,^theReview

Panel

recommends^asfollows:

1. That

Respondent receive a public

censure for violations of

Rule 1.3, W.R.Prof.Cond.

2. That,

upon issuance of the order of

public

censure, the foregoing

press release may ^beissued.

3. That

Respondent be required to pay an administrative

fee of

$750.00

and costs of $50.00 to the Wyoming

State Bar within^10daysof ^such

order. Dated this 30 of

September, 2026. a SPL

W.

Thomas Sullins, Chair Review

Panel of^theBoard of

Professional Responsibility Wyoming State Bar

7