Green River attorney disbarred

A Green River attorney was disbarred by the Wyoming Supreme Court for her conduct in representing clients and the status of their cases.

Last week, the court issued a press release regarding Danielle Mathey’s disbarment, saying she admitted to lying to clients about the status of their cases, fabricating court documents and mishandling trust account funds belonging to a client, as well as failing to respond to inquiries by the Wyoming State Bar’s Office of Bar Counsel regarding her conduct. Her actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct attorneys follow.

Along with being disbarred, Mathey was ordered to pay $1,500 in administrative fees and $100 to the Wyoming State Bar. She withdrew her membership to the Wyoming State Bar July 27, 2020, but acknowledged she remained subject to discipline through the Rule of Disciplinary Procedure.

According to court documents, one of the cases involved in the hearing inolved Lyman residents Jack and Marianne Bluemel, who hired Mathey to file a lawsuit on behalf of their company, JAMA Enterprises, LLC, against RPM Elite, Inc., seeking damages amounting to $39,075.27 for an alleged breach of contract. After emailing Mathey the information for the case against RPM in March, 2016 and updated employment information for one of the defendants in May, 2016, Marianne Bluemel requested a status update of the lawsuit Sept. 26, 2016. Mathey told her the cases were proceeding well, with the biggest delay being in finding a judge that did not share her last name (Joseph B. Bluemel is district court judge based in Uinta County.) She said the information sent was sufficient to finish the case and planned to move for judgement and asked Marianne Bluemel if she could provide and affidavit to authenticate the evidence.

On Feb. 20, 2027, Mathey told the Bluemels she would “get on” the case and that the affidavits would be authenticated and submitted to the judge. On April 5, 2017, Marianne Bluemel requested another status update and Mathey did not communicate with her between then and Feb. 28, 2018. On Jan. 16, 2018, the Bluemels filed a complaint against Mathey through the Office of Bar Counsel, which sent the complain and requested a response by Feb. 10, 2018.

Mathey responded to the Bar Counsel on Feb. 13, 2018, claiming she allowed “a client to slip through the cracks.” She said the issue stemmed from her mental health issues and admitted she violated her duty of diligence and to communicate.

“Because I have violated those duties, I do not deserve to defend myself against the Bleumels’ (sic) complaint and I will not defend myself. Instead I seek to offer a proposition,” Mathey’s response read.

She suggested a private reprimand contingent upon completing a course of treatment for depression and anxiety, stating inpatient treatment would be appropriate and necessary. She also said reparations to the Bluemels were due and would pursue the case without charge after refunding money they had paid to her.The investigation into Mathey’s actions was put on hold based on her assurance she would complete the case without charge. On Feb. 28, 2018, Mathey informed Marianne Bluemel she was filing something with the court “today or tomorrow.”

Mathey told the Bluemels she needed affidavits from them, which they signed April 26, 2018. Three days prior to that, Mathey spoke with the Bluemels, saying she would mail a new affidavit to the court and explained that once an order is entered, a garnishment can be sent to the employers and payment would be made to the clerk of court. She also said it took four years for the judge to sign an order in a different case.

Shannon Howshar, Assistant to Bar Counsel, called Mathey May 24, 2018 asking about the Bluemel case. Mathey said she was in regular contact with Marianne Bluemel and said the judgement in the Bluemel’s favor would be entered soon. Mathey also agreed to provide a copy of the judgement to the Office of Bar Counsel once it was entered.

On Oct. 11,2018, Marianne Bluemel emailed Mathey to ask if she had heard anything about the suit, with Howshar emailing Mathey about the case on Oct. 15 and 24, 2018, with Mathey not responding to those emails.

On Oct, 24, 2018, Mathey responded to Bluemel’s Oct. 11, 2018 email, saying she reminded the judge about the pending motion and he had asked about the plaintiffs’ intent for garnishment and if the defendants’ employment changed. On Oct. 30, 2018, Howshar requested an email through email and Mathey responded that she had to deal with a lot of private emergencies and hadn’t been in the office much. She said the case wasn’t finished yet and said she had to deal with a data entry problem that created a $10,000 discrepancy in the request and what the damages were actually calculated to be.

In December 2018, Mathey told Marianne Bluemel the judge signed a garnishment order, but there was an eight-week backlog. Howshar emailed Mathey Jan. 10, 2019 for an update, but Mathey did not respond. The Bar Counsel emailed Mathey on March 24, 2019 asking for a status update, with Mathey responding the next day saying she didn’t see the initial email from Howshar, thinking she may have accidentally deleted it while clearing junk mail on her phone. According to the court document, Mathey had a single conversation with Marianne Bluemel in 2019.

Another request for update was sent to Mathey from the Bar Counsel Jan. 14, 2020, stating the Bluemel complaint is now two years old. We have heard nothing from you since March 2019. Please provide an update as soon as possible.” A second email from Bar Counsel was sent Jan. 17, 2020.

At the same time, Marianne Bluemel contacted Mathey’s law office regarding the garnishment and checks, with the staff being unable to find the file. On Feb. 5, 2020, the office staff informed Marianne Bluemel her office needed to send another garnishment to the court and it could take 90 days to begin receiving checks.

Another status request email was sent by the Deputy Bar Counsel on March 6, 2020, asking about the case itself, if Mathey refunded the Bluemels, if she continued to represent the Bluemels without charge and written confirmation of her intent to withdraw from the RPM suit.

Mathey responded by saying the Bluemels had been refunded and she and Marianne spoke regularly. She also confirmed the case was being switched to another attorney in the office.

On March 23, 2020, Mathey provided the Office of Bar Counsel a notice to withdraw from the case and an entry of appearance for another attorney at Mathey Law Office, which were dated March 18 and March 23, 2020. However, the Entry of Appearance filing did not have a Certificate of Service, while the withdrawal notice did have a Certificate of Service notifying the opposing parties of the change March 18, 2020. The documents didn’t have identifying numbers printed on them and neither were stamped by the clerk of court.

“The documents were falsifications, fabricated by (Mathey) in response to Depurty Bar Counsel’s request” the court document reads.

Also, the RPM suit was filed April 1, 2020, three years after Mathey’s initial claim of filing it, with everything Mathey told the Bluemels and the Office of Bar Counsel about the case being “a fabrication on (Mathey’s) part.”

Mathey was admitted to practice law in New York in 2006, admitted in Nevada in 20010 and Wyoming in 2012, practicing law in Green River from 2012-2020.


Reader Comments(0)

Rendered 04/11/2024 10:24