The Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, Wyoming State Bar v. Clyde W. Stock

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2020 WY 16
October Term, A.D. 2019

February 5, 2020

THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE
OF LAW COMMITTEE, WYOMING
STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

D-19-0005
v.

CLYDE W. STOCK,

Respondent.

ORDER ENJOINING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

[{1] This matter came before the Court upon the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Recommendations of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law,” filed
herein December 30, 2019, by the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the
Wyoming State Bar (the Committee). After a careful review of the Committee’s
recommendations and the file, this Court finds the Committee’s Recommendations should
be approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court. It is, therefore,

[2] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Recommendations of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law,” which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved,
confirmed, and adopted by this Court; and it is further

[{3] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that Respondent Clyde W. Stock is hereby
enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 7(d)(1), Rules of
Procedure Governing Unauthorized Practice of Law; and it is further

[{4] ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2020, Respondent Clyde W. Stock shall remit
a fine of $4,000 to the Wyoming State Bar. Rule 7(d)(2), Rules of Procedure Governing
Unauthorized Practice of Law. If Respondent fails to pay the fine in the time allotted,
execution may issue on the fine; and it is further
[{5] ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2020, Respondent Clyde W. Stock shall make
restitution of $4,464 to Dan Carey. Rule 7(d)(3), Rules of Procedure Governing
Unauthorized Practice of Law. Respondent shall provide proof of such payment to the
Committee. If Respondent fails to make restitution in the time allotted, execution may
issue on the restitution award; and it is further

[{6] ORDERED that on or before June 1, 2020, Respondent Clyde W. Stock shall
reimburse the Committee for costs of this proceeding in the amount $5,877.67, by paying
that amount to the Wyoming State Bar. Rule 7(d)(4), Rules of Procedure Governing
Unauthorized Practice of Law. If Respondent fails to make payment in the time allotted,
execution may issue on the cost award.

[{7] DATED this 5" day of February, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/

MICHAEL K. DAVIS
Chief Justice
REME COURT

Ke.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

30 2019

STATE OF WYOMING
TRICIA BENNETT,

In the matter of )

)
CLYDE W. STOCK, ) UPL Nos. 2018-005 and 2018-006

)
Unauthorized practice of law respondent. )

)

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

THIS MATTER came before the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
(“Committee”) for hearing of Bar Counsel’s Petition for Civil Injunction and Other Relief. The
duly-noticed hearing was held on the 3" day of December, 2019, at the Sweetwater County
Courthouse in Green River, Wyoming. A quorum of the Committee, comprised of Christine
Stickley (Chair), Elizabeth Gagen, Melissa Owens, Michelle Connell, Anna Olson and Grant
Lawson, was present.! Appearing on behalf of the Wyoming State Bar were Mark Gifford, Bar
Counsel, Melinda McCorkle, Deputy Bar Counsel, and Shannon Howshar, Assistant to Bar
Counsel. Respondent did not appear; as a result, the hearing proceeded as a default hearing.

The Committee, having heard the testimony of witnesses, having received certain exhibits
into evidence, having reviewed the pleadings on file in this matter and being fully informed in the
premises, FINDS, CONCLUDES and RECOMMENDS as follows:

Findings of Fact
L, In late February 2018, Thayne attorney, Kevin Voyles, notified the Wyoming

Office of Bar Counsel and others of allegations that Freedom resident, Clyde Wallace Stock, had

' Owing to road closures between Casper and Green River, Ms. Olson and Mr. Lawson attended
by telephone.
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (“UPL”). Exhibit BC-1. Stock’s filings in this matter
indicate that he considers himself a sovereign citizen who frequently files declarations to that effect
with the Lincoln County Clerk. See, e.g, Exhibit BC-15. According to Voyles’ letter, the victims
of Stock’s UPL were Voyles’ longtime clients, Richard and Geraldine Casull, residents of
Freedom, Wyoming. According to Voyles’ letter, “Mr. Casull is terminally ill with cancer and
Mrs. Casull is incapacitated with dementia.”

2. Mr. Casull died May 6, 2018, at age 87. Biographical information about Mr. Casull
is readily available online and identifies him as “a Salt Lake City-born gunsmith and wildcat
cartridge developer whose experiments with .45 Colt ammunition in the 1950s led to the creation
of the .454 Casul] cartridge. Casull’s passion was six-shooters, and he was determined to create a
high velocity round for the .45 Colt.” In 1978, Casull and a partner created Freedom Arms in
Freedom, Wyoming. His online obituary indicates that Casull died in Freedom, Wyoming, and is
buried in Freedom Cemetery in Freedom, Idaho. The obituary reports, “Dick held 17 major firearm
patents and was voted Outstanding American Hand Gunner in 1987 along with many other awards
over the years.” According to her online obituary, Geraldine Casull died February 19, 2019. She
was 87,

3: Freedom is an unincorporated community located in northwestern Lincoln County,
Wyoming, and straddles the Wyoming-Idaho line. The 2010 census lists the population of
Freedom, Wyoming, at 214.

4. According to Voyles’ letter to Bar Counsel, the Dick and Jeri Casull Living Trust
was created in 2007 and was prepared by Bowers Law Firm in Afton, Wyoming (see copy of 2007
trust agreement, Exhibit BC-2). Thereafter, Casulls hired Voyles to amend the trust agreement

twice, once in 2010 (UPL 045-048) and again in 2016 (UPL 042-044),
5. With respect to Stock’s involvement with the trust, Voyles’ letter provided the
following narrative:

In October, 2017, Mr. Stock convinced Mr. Casull to execute what is titled the
“D & G Bullet Trust, a business trust” {see Exhibit BC-3], supposedly in
irrevocable complex trust. He told Mr. Casull the trust would protect his business
assets but would not include his personal property. Mr. Stock made himself one of
the “trustees” in the “trust” document.

Mr. Stock had Mr. and Mrs. Casull sign a quitclaim deed that put their real
property — which includes their personal residence — into the “trust”. That action
showed his complete misrepresentation to Mr. and Mrs. Casull of what was being
accomplished through the documents he was asking them to sign. Furthermore, it

is my opinion that due to her mental infirmity, Mrs. Casull clearly lacked capacity
to sign a deed.

Finally, Mr. Stock had Mr. Casull execute a new power of attorney that has
designated him as Mr. Casull’s Attorney-in-Fact [see Exhibit BC-8]. He also had
Mrs. Casull sign a new power of attorney that made Mr. Casull her Attorney-in-

Fact [see Exhibit BC-7]. It is my opinion that Mrs. Casull lacked capacity to sign
such a document.

As the grand finale of Mr. Stock’s “estate planning” efforts for Mr. and Mrs.
Casull, Mr. Stock advised them not to “let the lawyers” know what they had

executed. He explained that the lawyers “would not understand” and would “only
mess things up”.

To the best of my knowiedge, information, and belief, it is my opinion that Mr.
Casull did not read and did not understand the “trust” proffered by Mr. Stock. It is
my opinion that Mr. Casull had no idea that the title to his property is no longer in
his name and that of his wife as Trustees of their 2007 Trust. And it is my opinion

that Mrs. Casull has no understanding of anything that has transpired as a result of
Mr. Stock’s actions.

6. Voyles’ letter continued, “It is likely that legal action will be necessary to clear the
title to [Casulls’] real property since it has been clouded by the conveyance to a purported
‘irrevocable trust’. ... It is also my opinion that Mr. Stock needs to be stopped from preying on

elderly people in such fashion. ... Mr. Stock should be held responsible, and he should be estopped

from harming others.”
i

On April 13, 2018, Voyles sent an email to the Office of Bar Counsel advising that

Voyles had obtained a title guarantee insuring the property title for the 2007 trust. Attached to his

email were several affidavits, all reportedly prepared by Stock. See Exhibit BC-10. The

attachments included an affidavit from Martin T. Occhi, who testified that Stock had asked him to

serve as a trustee on the D & G Bullet Trust in October 2017. Also attached was an affidavit from

Stock, who testified that he prepared the two powers of attorney at Dick Casull’s request and that

he reviewed the 2007 Trust, also at Casull’s request:

I did read [the 2007 Trust Agreement], and then told him that I did not know if that
living trust would protect his assets or not. I then told him that Rea [Stock] and I
had a trust that protected us several times from lawsuits, and that could have lost
everything we had, if it had not been for the Trust that was in place. He then asked
me if 1 could help him get a trust, like what Rea and I used that would protect his
and Geri’s property.

UPL 088.
8.

On April 24, 2018, the Office of Bar Counsel received a formal UPL report from

Jackson attorney, Andrew Irvine, who submitted the report on behalf of M. Daniel Carey, an adult

nephew of Casulls. Exhibit BC-11. The report named both Stock and Occhi as respondents and

provided the following narrative:

Mr. Stock and Mr. Occhi provided advice, expressed legal opinions and drafted
legal documents for Mr. Richard Casull and Mrs. Geraldine B. Casull without
having been admitted to practice law in Wyoming. Mr. Casull is dying of cancer
and does not have the capacity or will to manage his property and personal affairs.
Likewise, Mrs. Casull suffers from severe dementia and lacks capacity to make
decisions for herself. It appears that Mssrs. Stock and Occhi preyed on this sick
and elderly couple in order to undo their long-standing trust agreement and take
their property and assets for their own.

9.

Attached to the report were Voyles’ letter of February 20, 2018 (Exhibit BC-1),

along with copies of the documents allegedly prepared by Stock and Occhi, most of which had

been attached to Voyles’ letter.
10.

In early May 2018, a letter of inquiry was sent by Bar Counsel to Stock, along with

a copy of Irvine’s UPL report. Mr. Stock was asked to respond in writing by May 23, 2018.

Exhibit BC-12.

ll.

BC-13):

Stock’s response, dated May 18, 2018, was received on May 29, 2018 (Exhibit

Dear Mr. Gifford:

Thank you for giving me the option of answering this Complaint myself, and
not have to use an attorney. I am in my 84" year and the caretaker of my invalid
wife of 65 years. I have limited income, so I appreciate your consideration.

I have never intended to practice law. I do not know how to practice law. If
what I did appeared to be the practice of law, I apologize. At Dick [Casull]’s
request, | did adapt our estate plan (the trust) over to Dick and Geri, so they would
have some asset protection. I duplicated Dick’s original trust, just as he requested.

My intent was only to help an old friend of mine for over 50 years, and not to
practice law.

As for the egregious claims made by M. Daniel Carey/Andrelrvine [sic] and
Kevin Voyles, I, would be happy to answer the charges point by point any time you
want to see my response. I know you are busy, so I will not take your time to
answer their egregious claims at this time. There may be a law firm in Salt Lake
City ready to counterclaim any lawsuit filed trying to extort money from me to pay
Dan Cary’s {sic] legal fees. They feel Dan is guilty of harassment & extortion.

I am including the 9 minute orders of the D&G Bullet Trust, just in case you
are interested and have not seen them all, also My affidavit dated: 8 March 2018

I hope this will explain the situation to your satisfaction. If you need more

information I would be very happy to answer any questions or supply more
information,

12. Attached to Stock’s response were a copy of the affidavit previously provided by

Voyles along with a number of “minutes” — ostensibly, directives signed by Mr. Casull regarding

his intentions for management of the trust. Exhibit BC-9. The “minutes” included a copy of a

quitclaim deed recorded with the Lincoln County Clerk on November 1, 2017, by which Casulls

purportedly transferred title to their real property to the D & G Bullet Trust. Exhibit BC-4. The

5
filing of this document presumably created the title problem that Voyles resolved in April 2018 by

obtaining a commitment from a title insurance company for the Casulls’ property that had been

put in the D & G Bullet Trust.

13. On July 10, 2018, Stock sent a letter to Bar Counsel to which he attached a list of
cases pulled from the Internet which he said shows he does not need a license to practice law in

any event. Exhibit BC-14.

14. In order to clear up the title problems created by Stock’s conduct, it was necessary
for Voyles to obtain an appraisal and a title commitment. Exhibit BC-18. The out-of-pocket costs
of that effort were $1,889.00. Exhibit BC-17. Legal fees associated with clearing the title
exceeded $2,500.00 (see Exhibit BC-16), bringing the total expenses incurred as a result of

Stock’s conduct to $4,464.00.

15. On March 29, 2019, Bar Counsel wrote to Stock as follows:

I have completed my investigation of the above-referenced matter, which was
conducted pursuant to the Wyoming Supreme Court’s Rules of Procedure
Governing Unauthorized Practice of Law (the “Rules”). It is my conclusion that
there is indisputable evidence that you engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
in Wyoming by (1) preparing the D & G Bullet Trust and related documents; (2)
preparing and recording the quitclaim deed transferring the Casull property to the
D & G Bullet Trust; and (3) preparing the general power of attorney of Richard J.
Casull. Your actions necessitated the expenditure of significant attorney fees and
related costs in clearing the title on the Casull real property and rescinding the
general power of attorney.

Bar Counsel proposed to resolve the matter as follows:

Before advancing this matter to a formal hearing before the Committee on the
Unauthorized Practice of Law (the “Committee”), I would like to propose a
reasonable resolution that may avoid the need for a hearing. This proposal
contemplates that you enter into a consent agreement requiring you to (1) refrain
any further incidents of the unauthorized practice of law; (2) make restitution; and
(3) pay a fine for each incident of the unauthorized practice of law.

Under the Rules, a person who enters into a consent agreement may be required
to pay restitution. The Rules also provide that a person who enters into a consent
agreement may be required to pay a fine that may range from $100.00 to $250.00

6
per incident of unauthorized practice of law. My proposal to resolve this matter by
entering into a consent agreement is conditioned upon your agreement to pay
restitution in the amount of $4,464.00 and a fine of $300.00 ($100.00 for each of
the three incidents of unauthorized practice of law). Thus, the total amount you
would be required to pay under a consent agreement is $4,764.00.

Exhibit BC-19.

16. Stock did not respond to the proposal. Instead, he sent an “Express Notice of
‘Waiver of Tort’” which contained an apparent offer to settle his claims against Bar Counsel and
others in exchange for a payment of $620,000.00. Exhibit BC-22. A month later, Stock sent a

“Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure” which apparently reiterated his settlement demand.

Exhibit BC-23.

17. On May 13, 2019, Bar Counsel filed a Petition for Civil Injunction and Other Relief

with the Wyoming Supreme Court. On May 21, 2019, the Court referred the petition to this

Committee for hearing. Respondent’s answer to the petition, filed June 20, 2019, begins with the

following:

Respondent is not now nor ever has been a resident of Freedom, Wyoming.
Respondent disavows, past or present, any residency in any DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA territorial construct called a county. Respondent believes that no
evidence exists that Respondent has ever been a resident of any county in Wyoming
or any other state. Therefore, the court has no in personam jurisdiction. The BAR
and their rules and power over the Respondent does not exist. Respondent has no
evidence of this court’s jurisdiction and believes none exists.

18. A telephonic scheduling conference was held July 19, 2019, and was attended by
Christine Stickley, Committee Chair; Mark Gifford, Bar Counsel; and Respondent Clyde Wallace
Stock.

19. Following the telephonic scheduling conference an Order Setting Dates and
Deadlines was entered July 25, 2019. Deadlines were established for discovery and the pre-

hearing filing of witnesses and exhibits by the parties, The matter was set for hearing on the 20"
day of September, 2019, in Green River, Wyoming.

7
20. By Order dated August 21, 2019, the location of the hearing was changed to the
Sweetwater County Justice Center in Rock Springs, Wyoming. However, the September 20
hearing date remained.

21. On September 17, 2019, Stock sent an email to Committee Chair Stickley in which
he stated that he was ill and unable to attend the September 20 hearing. Chair Stickley responded
with the following email:

Mr. Stock:

Although you did not provide the [medical] documentation requested, your request
for a continuation of the hearing scheduled for September 20" is granted. However,
because of the time and expense involved in rescheduling, there will only be one
continuance granted. A default will be entered against you if you are unable to
attend the next hearing date that is scheduled.

Ms. Howshar will be rescheduling the date for the hearing and will be in contact
with you.

Exhibit BC-26.

22. On September 30, 2019, Stock filed a “Motion for Dismissal of Case Due to Lack
of Personam Jurisdiction” in which Stock argued among other things that any requirement that
persons providing legal services has to be licensed to practice law is contrary to law. In the same
filing, Stock admitted to preparing the D & G Bullet Trust as well as the general powers of attorney
for Mr. and Mrs, Casull.

23. | On September 30, 2019, Bar Counsel filed a response in which he pointed out that
Stock himself is a licensed professional, holding a dental license issued by the Wyoming Board of

Dental Examiners.

24. On October 16, 2019, an Order was entered rescheduling the hearing for December
3, 2019, in Green River, Wyoming.
25. On October 29, 2019, Stock filed a reply to Bar Counsel’s objection to Stock’s
motion for dismissal. In it, Stock announced that he had requested that his dental license be

cancelled.

26. On November 19, 2019, Chair Stickley entered an Order denying Stock’s motion
for dismissal.

27. On Sunday evening, December 1, 2019, an individual apparently acting on Stock’s
behalf sent Chair Stickley and Bar Counsel an email to which was attached a document entitled
“Witness Testimony in the Form of an Affidavit” signed by Stock. Included with the 13-page
affidavit was the following statement signed by Stock:

This is to notify you that I will not attend the meeting on the 3 of December. |

have been very sick. I am with my daughter in Salt Lake so that she can take care

of me and my wife. I am unable to even get meals or take care of my wife without

help.

Stock’s affidavit was not accompanied by a motion for continuance. It is significant that despite
his claimed illness, Stock was able to prepare a 13-page affidavit and submit it two days before
the hearing. Consistent with the notice previously provided by Chair Stickley, the December 3
hearing proceeded as a default hearing.

28. The hearing focused on Stock’s commission of four separate acts constituting the
unauthorized practice of law: (1) preparation of the D & G Bullet Trust dated October 26, 2017
(Exhibit BC-3); (2) preparation of the Quitclaim Deed dated October 26, 2017, and recorded with
the Lincoln County Clerk on November 1, 2017, purporting to convey real property from Mr. and
Mrs. Casull’s living trust to the D & G Bullet Trust (Exhibit BC-4); (3) preparation of a General
Power of Attorney for Geraldine B. Casull dated November 2, 2017 (Exhibit BC-7); and (4)

preparation ofa General Power of Attorney for Richard J. Casull dated November 3, 2017 (Exhibit

BC-8). It is undisputed that Stock prepared all four documents.
29. At the hearing, Voyles testified that he had represented Mr. and Mrs. Casull for
several years, including preparation of two amendments to their living trust (one in 2010 and a
second in 2016) which had originally been prepared by the Bowers Law Firm in 2007. See Exhibit
BC-2. Voyles testified that he first became aware of Stock’s unauthorized practice of law when
Mr. and Mrs. Casull’s nephew (and principle beneficiary of their estate), Dan Carey, brought
copies of the D & G Bullet Trust and related documents to Voyles’ office. Upon review of the
documents, Voyles identified a number of potentially harmful consequences, including a potential
cloud on the title to Mr. and Mrs. Casull’s residence and adjacent property.

30. Voyles set about implementing remedial measures to mitigate the damage done by
Stock’s conduct, including meeting with Carey and Stock and urging Stock to rescind his actions
with respect to the D & G Bullet Trust as well as the quitclaim deed and genera! powers of attorney.
Stock claimed that he never intended to harm the Casulls but was only trying to help his friends.
Voyles testified that he was not persuaded by Stock’s feigned innocence. Voyles suspected that
this was part of a larger scheme by Stock and a few cohorts to obtain control of Casulls’ estate,
including a large gun collection as well as Mr. Casull’s drawings and other proprietary materials
relating to his numerous arms-related inventions.

31. Voyles, who has extensive experience with trusts, estate planning and real property
law, was troubled by a number of unusual provisions of the D & G Bullet Trust, including:

e The Trust purported to be an irrevocable business trust.

e “Property” encompassed by the Trust included “real and personal movable or immovable
property of any description and whosesoever situate including (without limiting the
ually thereof) policies, cash, chose in action, deeds, titles, assignments, mortgages and
oans,”

e Ownership of property in the Trust would be held by the Trustees, Stock and a cohort,
Martin T. Occhi, who “shall have absolute and sole authority to determine what shall

constitute principal and earnings (corpus and income) and shall have authority to determine
if and when distributions will be made to the Beneficiary(s).”

10
The Trust contemplated appointment of a General Manager who would be authorized to
issue “ninety-nine (99) Certificates of Capital Units (hereinafter called Capital Units)
representing ninety-nine percent (99%) of the beneficial interest in the Trust Estate.” The
General Manager “may make loans whether secured or unsecured and whether with or
without interest to any person.”

The Trustees would be entitled to reimbursement of “all direct and indirect expenses of the
Trust incurred or paid on behalf of the Trust, or expenses used to maintain twenty-four
hour monitoring and availability to the Trust and the Trust business(s).”

Among the expenses to be paid by the trust were the “cost of all emergency, medical and
dental care, and health, life, and retirement insurance for the Trust Officers to continue;”
the “cost and maintenance of a place of business, offices and plants, and the Trust
Headquarters, and furnishings, assets, supplies and personnel to properly conduct the
affairs of the Trust;” and “the cost of performance awards and ‘Prizes’ awarded to all
contract workers of the Trust and the Trust business.”

The Trust provided that the Trustees would have “absolute and uncontrolled discretion and
power” and would “not be liable for any loss or damage occurring as a result of the exercise
of such discretion or power.”

The Trustees “shall not be required to obtain authority or approval of any court in the
exercise of any power conferred hereunder and shall not be required to make current reports
or any accounting thereto.”

The Trustees were empowered to determine their own compensation.

The Trust concluded with a provision that “all other trusts and/or wills are null & void.”

32, Voyles testified that he requested a title commitment from a reputable title

insurance company, Wyoming Title & Escrow. In reviewing title to the Casulls’ property, the title

company discovered a number of affidavits by Stock and his cohorts disclaiming any nefarious

intent with respect to the D & G Bullet Trust and related documents, most if not all of which had

apparently been prepared by Stock and filed with the Lincoln County Clerk. See Exhibit BC-10.

Voyles testified that he was shocked when the title company indicated that the company was

willing to issue a title commitment that did not list the Quitclaim Deed prepared by Stock as one

of the exceptions from coverage set forth in Schedule B. See Exhibit BC-18. Voyles testified

that the property is currently up for sale and could not rule out the potential for a future quict title

action even with the title commitment. Voyles estimated that the cost of such an action would be

$5,000.00 to $10,000.00.

1]
33. Voyles testified that the legal fees associated with curing the title problems created
by the D & G Bullet Trust and the Quitclaim Deed were $2,575.00. In addition, out-of-pocket
costs (the cost of an appraisal, the title company’s fee and recording fees) totaled $1,889.00,
bringing the total costs of remediation to $4,464.00.

34. Dan Carey testified regarding his relationship with his uncle, Dick Casull, and
described Casull as the kindest person he has ever known. Carey attributes his career as a Navy
and commercial airline pilot to a plane ride Carey took with his uncle when Carey was 17 years
old. The Casulls never had children of their own; Carey considered Casull to be a father figure.

35. Carey testified that he and his wife, Nancy, cared for the Casulls in their final
illnesses, moving Mr, Casull into their home during the final months of his life. Carey testified
regarding his discovery of the D & G Bullet Trust and related documents in a notebook in Casulls’
home, When Carey asked his uncle about it, Casull explained that it was a business trust that his
friend, Clyde Stock, had prepared to give them better protection for their assets.

36. Carey testified regarding his meeting with Voyles who, upon review of the D & G
Bullet Trust and related paperwork, had serious concerns about the potential harms posed by the
documents. When Carey relayed those concerns to his uncle, Casull asked, “Can you help us get
it back?” It was at that point the Carey engaged Voyles’ services to implement the remedial
measures discussed above.

37. Carey also testified to a brief encounter he had with Stock at a restaurant in Star
Valley, during which Stock cautioned Carey against discussing the Trust with lawyers who,
according to Stock, “wouldn't understand it.” Carey echoed Voyles’ suspicions that the Trust and
related documents were part of a larger scheme by Stock and his cohorts to obtain ownership of

the Casulls’ estate, including Mr. Casull’s gun collection, patents, drawings and inventions.

12
38. Based on the foregoing, the Committee finds that Stock engaged in at least four
incidents of the unauthorized practice of law: (1) preparation of the D & G Bullet Trust dated
October 26, 2017 (Exhibit BC-3); (2) preparation of the Quitclaim Deed dated October 26, 2017,
and recorded with the Lincoln County Clerk on November 1, 2017, purporting to convey real
property from Mr. and Mrs. Casull’s living trust to the D & G Bullet Trust (Exhibit BC-4); (3)
preparation of a General Power of Attorney for Geraldine B. Casull dated November 2, 2017
(Exhibit BC-7); and (4) preparation of a General Power of Attorney for Richard J. Casull dated
November 3, 2017 (Exhibit BC-8).

39. | The Committee further finds that Stock should be required to pay restitution to Dan
Carey in the amount of $4,464.00.

40. The Committee further finds that Stock should be required to pay a fine in the
amount of $1,000.00 for cach incident of the unauthorized practice of law, for a total fine of
$4,000.00.

41. The Committee further finds that Stock should be required to reimburse the
Wyoming State Bar for costs associated with this investigation and hearing.

Conclusions of Law

42. Wyoming Statute § 33-5-117, entitled “Unauthorized Practice,” provides, “It shall
be unlawful, and punishable as contempt of court, for any person not a member of the Wyoming
state bar to hold himself out or advertise by whatsoever means as an attorney or counselor-at-law.”

43. Rule 7 of the Rules Governing the Wyoming State Bar and the Authorized Practice
of law provides in pertinent part:

Rule 7. Authorization to practice law.
(a) The following persons are authorized to practice law in Wyoming:
(1) Members of the Wyoming State Bar, as more fully delineated and subject
to the limitations set forth in the Bylaws of the Wyoming State Bar;

13
(2) Attorneys who have been granted pro hac vice admission as provided in
Rule 8, subject to the limitations set forth in that rule;

(3) Law school clinic supervising attorneys meeting the qualifications of Rule
9, subject to the limitations set forth in that rule;

(4) Law students meeting the qualifications of Rule 9, subject to the
limitations set forth in that rule; and

(5) Attorneys meeting the qualifications of Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules
of Professional Conduct, subject to the limitations set forth in that rule.

(b) “Practice law” means providing any legal service for any other person, firm

or corporation, with or without compensation, or providing professional legal

advice or services where there is a client relationship of trust or reliance,

including appearing as an advocate in a representative capacity; drafting

pleadings or other documents; or performing any act in a representative

capacity in connection with a prospective or pending proceeding before any

tribunal.

44, The Rules of Procedure Governing Unauthorized Practice of Law Proceedings
provide in pertinent part:

Rule 5. Investigation.
a
(f) If, after conducting an investigation, Bar Counsel believes that the
respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, Bar Counsel may do
one or more of the following:
(1) commence civil injunction proceedings as provided in Rule 6;
(2) commence civil contempt proceedings as provided in Rule 8;
(3) enter into a consent agreement with the respondent in which the
respondent agrees to do one or more of the following:
(A) refrain from the conduct in question;
(B) refund any fees collected;
(C) make restitution;
(D) pay a fine that may range from one hundred dollars ($100) to

two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) per incident of unauthorized
practice of law.

Rule 6. Civil injunction proceedings.

(a) If Bar Counsel determines that civil injunction proceedings should be
instituted against a respondent, including when seeking approval of a consent
agreement entered into under subparagraph (3) of paragraph (f) of Rule 5, Bar
Counsel may commence such proceedings in the name of the Committee by filing
a petition in the Supreme Court. The petition shall be in writing and shall set forth
the facts and charges in plain language and with sufficient particularity to inform
the respondent of the acts that Bar Counsel contends constitute the unauthorized
practice of law. The petition shall specify the requested relief, which may include,
without limitation, injunction, refund, restitution, a fine, and assessment of costs of

14
the proceeding, or the approval of a consent agreement. Bar Counsel shall, at the
time of filing the petition, serve a copy upon the respondent by certified mail.

(b) Upon receipt of a petition filed by Bar Counsel in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this rule, the Court may issue an order referring the matter to the
Committee for further proceedings in accordance with paragraphs (d) through (h)
of this rule.

(c) If the Court refers a case to the Committee under paragraph (b) of this rule,
the Court shall order the respondent to file with the Committee a written answer
admitting or denying the matter stated in the petition. Unless otherwise ordered by
the Court, the answer shall be filed within twenty (20) days after service of the
Court’s order on the respondent.
ee

(h) Notice of findings, conclusions, and recommended disposition.

(1) Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the parties’ proposed findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended disposition of the case, the
Committee shall submit to the Supreme Court the record of the hearing and a
written report setting forth the Committee’s findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommended final disposition of the case. A copy of the written report
shall be mailed to respondent and Bar Counsel.

(2) If the Committee concludes in the report that the respondent has
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, then the Committee may _
recommend that a fine be imposed for each incident of unauthorized practice of
law; the minimum fine for each incident shall be not less than two hundred and
fifty dollars ($250) and not more than one thousand dollars ($1000).

Rule 7. Determination by the Supreme Court.

(a) Respondent may file a response with the Court to the Committee’s report
and recommendations within thirty (30) days of mailing of the report and
recommendations to respondent. Respondent shall mail a copy of the response to
Bar Counsel. A response shall state respondent’s objections to the written report.

(b) The Court may, in its discretion, order respondent or Bar Counsel to file

briefs on any issue the Court determines appropriate and may order oral argument
before the Court.

(c) After reviewing the Committee’s report and recommendations, any
response by respondent, the record, and any briefs and oral argument submitted by
the parties, the Court may adopt, modify, or reject the Committee’s
recommendations, in whole or in part, and shall determine as a matter of law
whether the respondent has been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or, in
the case of a consent agreement, whether to accept or reject the agreement. In
reaching its decision, the Court will give due consideration to the Committee’s
factual findings. The Court will review de novo the Committee’s conclusions of
law and recommended disposition.

(d) If the Court finds that the respondent has engaged in the unauthorized

practice of law, the Court may enter an order granting any or all of the following
relief:

15
ee

(1) enjoining the respondent from further conduct found to constitute
the unauthorized practice of law;

(2) imposing on the respondent any fines recommended by the
Committee;

(3) ordering restitution;

(4) assessing the costs of the proceedings against the respondent; and/or

(5) ordering such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

kak

Rule 11. General provisions.

(a) In determining whether particular conduct involves the unauthorized
practice of law, Bar Counsel, the Committee and the Court shall be guided by the
following principles:

(1) | The Court’s rules regarding the authorized practice of law.

(2) The core element of practicing law is the giving of legal advice to a
client. Factors to be applied in determining between legal and non-legal advice
include:

(A) the specificity of the advice;
(B) the likelihood that the advice will be erroneous; and
(C) the degree of harm to the recipient if the advice is erroneous.

(3) Any activity which calls for the exercise of discretion, such as
interviewing or advising another about the legal effect of certain choices,
involves the practice of law.

(4) Receiving money for drafting documents or performing other
services involving legal matters constitutes the practice of law.

(5) Holding one’s self out as qualified to assist others in legal matters
constitutes the practice of law.

(6) The reason for restricting the practice of law to lawyers is to protect
the public.

(7) _ In the absence of case law in Wyoming, deference should be given
to the weight of authority from other jurisdictions.

Recommendations

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Committee

recommends that the Court issue an order:

of law;

and

l. Enjoining Respondent from further conduct constituting the unauthorized practice

2. Imposing fines upon Respondent in the amount of $4,000.00;

3. Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Dan Carey in the amount of $4,464.00;

16
4, Assessing the costs of these proceedings against Respondent.

DATED this [BD day of December, 2019.

Stine Stickley, Chair

Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
Wyoming State Bar

17