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

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
2026 WY 113
October Term, A.D. 2026
October 21, 2026
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING
STATE BAR,
Petitioner,
v.
CORRIE LYNN LAMB, WSB
#7-5923,
Respondent.
D-26-0004
ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE
[¶1] 	This matter came before the Court upon a Report and Recommendation for Public
Censure, filed herein October 8, 2026, by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the
Wyoming State Bar. 	The Report and Recommendation was filed pursuant to Rule 12 of
the Wyoming Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, which governs stipulated discipline. The
Court, after a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and
Recommendation and the file, finds that the Report and Recommendation should be
approved, confirmed and adopted by the Court, and that Respondent Corrie Lynn Lamb
should be publicly censured for her conduct. It is, therefore,
[¶2] 	ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibility’s
Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, 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, as a result of the conduct set forth in the
Report and Recommendation for Public Censure, Corrie Lynn Lamb shall be publicly
censured; and it is further;

[¶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 21st day of October, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
LYNNE BOOMGAARDEN
Chief Justice

IN 	THE 	SUPREME 	COURT
BEFORE 	THE 	SUPREME COURT 	STATE 	OF 	WYOMING
FILED
STATE 	OF 	WYOMING 	OCT 	-§ 	2026
SHAWNA 	GOETZ, 	CLERK
In 	the 	matter 	of 	) by 	DEPUTY
CORRIE 	LYNN LAMB, 	)
WSB 	# 	7-5923, 	) 	Docket No. 	2025-109
:
Respondent. D-26 	0004
REPORT 	AND 	RECOMMENDATION 	FOR 	PUBLIC 	CENSURE
THIS 	MATTER 	came 	before 	a 	Review 	Panel 	of the 	Board 	of Professional 	Responsibility
comprised 	of 	Hon. 	W. 	Thomas 	Sullins 	(chair), 	Hon. 	John 	C. 	Brooks 	and 	Brett 	McPeak 	for 	con-
sideration 	of the parties' Stipulation 	for 	Public 	Censure 	pursuant 	to 	Rules 	9 	and 	12 	of 	the 	Wyo-
ming 	Rules 	of 	Disciplinary 	Procedure. 	The 	Review 	Panel 	having 	reviewed 	the 	Stipulation, 	the
supporting 	Affidavit 	and 	being 	fully 	advised 	in 	the 	premises, 	finds, 	concludes 	and 	recommends:
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 	she 	and 	her
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 	in 	the 	Sixth 	Judicial 	District 	admonishing 	her 	for 	failing 	to 	appear 	in
court, 	being 	late 	to 	hearings 	and 	being 	unprepared. 	Bar 	Counsel 	initiated 	an 	investigation 	for
possible 	violations 	of 	Rules 	1.1 	(competence), 	1.3 	(diligence), 	3.1 	(meritorious 	claims 	and 	con-
tentions) 	and 	3.4(c) 	(failure 	to 	abide 	by 	the 	rules 	of the 	tribunal 	(OBC 	002) 	and 	requested 	a 	writ-
ten 	response 	by 	November 	10, 	2025.
3. 	Respondent 	failed 	to 	timely 	respond 	to 	Bar 	Counsel's 	inquiry. 	On 	November 	17,
2025, 	Bar 	Counsel 	wrote 	to 	Respondent again, 	reminding 	her 	of 	her 	duty 	under 	Rule 	of 	Profes-

sional 	Conduct 	8.1(b) 	and 	Rule 	of 	Disciplinary 	Procedure 	8(a) 	to 	cooperate 	with 	Bar 	Counsel's
investigation.
4. 	On 	November 	18, 	2025, 	Respondent's 	written 	response 	was 	received 	essentially
denying 	any 	misconduct 	on 	her 	part 	and 	blaming 	any 	lapses 	on 	a 	myriad 	of 	issues, 	including
problems 	with 	support 	staff. 	Bar 	Counsel 	forwarded 	Respondent's 	response 	to 	the 	four 	district
court judges 	and 	asked 	for 	their 	thoughts 	on the 	matter.
5. 	Bar 	Counsel 	received 	a 	response 	from 	District 	Court 	Judge 	Stuart 	Healy, 	the 	first
paragraph 	of which 	encapsulates 	the 	problem:
Thank 	you 	for sharing 	this. 	I 	suspected 	that 	Ms. 	Lamb 	would 	try 	to 	say 	that 	all 	of
this 	is 	due 	to 	a 	change 	in 	personnel 	at 	her 	office 	because 	that 	is 	what 	she 	has 	told
our 	JA's 	(they 	know 	better). 	That 	is 	not 	true. 	The 	court's 	issues 	with 	her 	have 	been
going 	on 	almost 	since 	I 	started 	as 	a 	judge 	here 	in 	December 	of 	2020. 	She 	is 	fre-
quently 	(and, 	incredibly, 	even 	since 	receiving 	our 	letter 	of 	concern) 	late 	for 	hear-
ings 	or 	fails 	to 	show 	up. 	There 	is 	always 	an 	excuse, 	e.g., 	new 	calendaring 	soft-
ware 	(I 	have 	heard 	that 	on 	at 	least 	two 	occasions 	- 	and 	before 	she 	lost 	the 	employ-
ee 	she 	complains 	of), 	sick 	children, 	lack 	of 	babysitter, 	car 	issues, 	getting 	lost 	on
the 	way 	to 	court 	in 	Newcastle 	two days 	in 	a 	row 	(ask 	Judge 	Castano 	about 	that
one), 	etc. 	On 	multiple 	occasions 	I 	have 	had 	to 	pause 	court 	to 	allow 	her 	to 	confer
with 	her 	client 	because 	they 	have 	not 	discussed 	a 	primary 	issue. 	There 	was 	a 	time
last 	year when, 	at 	a 	break 	during 	a 	divorce 	trial, 	she 	thought 	it 	was 	appropriate 	to
vape 	in 	the 	courtroom 	-
a 	choice 	that 	was 	captured 	on 	Teams 	and 	observed 	by 	my
staff 	attorney. 	At 	one 	point 	we 	judges 	were 	so 	concerned 	about 	what 	she 	was
wearing 	to 	court, 	we 	had 	to 	have 	Judge 	Bartlett 	discuss 	with 	her 	what 	appropriate
dress 	is. 	It's 	simply 	issue 	after 	issue.
6. 	Bar 	Counsel 	received 	a 	response 	from 	District 	Court 	Judge 	Michael 	McGrady,
who 	concluded 	his 	comments 	with, 	"Something 	needs 	to 	change, 	but 	I 	am 	concerned 	that 	the 	ex-
ecutive 	functioning 	deficiencies 	are 	baked 	in 	the 	cake. 	I 	don't 	see 	how 	a 	calendaring 	tool 	or 	soft-
ware 	program 	can 	fix 	an 	attorney 	who 	is 	not 	capable 	of being 	in 	charge 	of her 	office 	and cases."
7. 	On 	November 	24, 	2025, 	Bar 	Counsel 	wrote 	to 	Respondent, 	providing 	Respondent
with 	copies 	of 	the judges' feedback 	and 	sharing 	the 	conclusion 	that 	Bar 	Counsel's 	investigation
2

revealed 	clear 	and 	convincing 	evidence 	of 	violations 	of 	Rule 	of 	Professional 	Conduct 	1.3 	(dili-
gence):
Taken 	together, 	these 	responses 	document 	a 	troubling 	pattern 	of 	multiple 	viola-
tions 	of 	the 	Rules 	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 	of Rule 	1.3 	(diligence).
Bar 	Counsel 	proposed 	a 	stipulated 	resolution 	of 	the 	pending 	investigation 	and 	requested 	a 	re-
sponse 	from 	Respondent 	by 	the 	close 	of 	business 	December 	1, 	2025. 	Respondent 	failed 	to 	re-
spond.
8. 	On 	December 	9, 	2025, 	Bar 	Counsel received 	an 	email 	from 	Circuit 	Court 	Judge
Gregory 	Steward 	regarding 	something 	that 	happened 	that 	morning, 	when 	Respondent 	failed 	to
appear 	for 	a 	hearing 	in 	circuit 	court. 	Bar 	Counsel 	provided 	a 	copy 	of Judge 	Steward's 	report 	to
Respondent 	and 	informed 	Respondent 	that 	Bar 	Counsel 	was 	going 	to 	request 	authority 	to 	file 	a
formal 	charge 	from 	the 	Review 	and 	Oversight 	Committee.
9. 	On 	December 	22, 	2025, 	the 	Review 	and 	Oversight 	Committee 	issued 	an 	order 	of
finding 	of probable 	cause, 	authorizing 	Bar 	Counsel 	to 	file 	a 	formal 	charge 	against 	Respondent.
On 	January 	2, 	2026, 	Bar 	Counsel 	filed 	a 	formal 	charge 	against 	Respondent 	with 	the 	Board 	of
Professional 	Responsibility 	(BPR).
10. 	Respondent 	conditionally 	admits, 	and 	the 	Review 	Panel 	finds, 	that 	Respondent
engaged 	in 	a 	pattern 	of conduct 	that 	constitutes 	a 	violation 	of Rule 	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 	a 	sanction 	for 	professional 	conduct, 	the 	BPR 	shall 	apply 	the 	ABA
Standards 	for 	Imposing 	Lawyer 	Sanctions 	(the 	"ABA 	Standards"). 	Pertinent 	to 	the 	present
Stipulation, 	it 	is necessary 	to 	apply 	the 	ABA 	standards 	relevant 	to 	the 	duty 	violated 	by 	Re-
Determination 	of the 	Appropriate 	Sanction
Rule 	15(b)(3)(D) 	of 	the 	Wyoming 	Rules 	of 	Disciplinary 	Procedure 	(WR.DP)
spondent 	as 	well 	as 	aggravating 	and 	mitigating 	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, 	upon 	application 	of 	the 	factors
set 	out 	in 	Standard 	3.0, 	the 	following 	sanctions 	are 	generally 	appropriate 	in 	cases
involving 	a 	failure 	to 	act 	with 	reasonable 	diligence 	and 	promptness 	in
representing 	a 	client:
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
The 	parties 	agree, 	and 	the 	Review 	Panel 	so 	finds 	that 	in 	Respondent's 	case, before 	weighing 	ag-
Disbarment 	is 	generally 	appropriate 	when:
(a) 	a 	lawyer 	abandons 	the 	practice 	and 	causes 	serious 	or 	potentially
serious 	injury 	to 	a 	client; 	or
(b) 	a 	lawyer knowingly 	fails 	to 	perform 	services 	for 	a 	client 	and 	cause
$erious 	or 	potentially 	serious 	injury 	to 	a 	client; 	or
(c) 	a 	lawyer 	engages 	in 	a 	pattern 	of 	neglect 	with 	respect 	to 	client 	matters
and 	causes 	serious 	or 	potentially 	serious 	injury 	to 	a 	client.
Suspension 	is 	generally 	appropriate 	when:
(a) 	a 	lawyer 	knowingly 	fails 	to 	perform 	services 	for 	a 	client 	and 	causes
injury 	or 	potential 	injury 	to 	a 	client, 	or
(b) 	a 	lawyer 	engages 	in 	a 	pattern 	of 	neglect 	with 	respect 	to 	client 	matters
and 	causes 	injury 	or 	potential 	injury 	to 	a 	client.
Reprimand 	[i.e., 	"public censure" under 	Rule 	9(a)(3) 	of 	the 	Rules 	of
Disciplinary 	Procedure] 	is 	generally 	appropriate 	when 	a 	lawyer 	is
negligent 	and 	does 	not 	act 	with 	reasonable 	diligence 	in 	representing 	a
client, 	and 	causes 	injury 	or 	potential 	injury 	to 	a 	client.
Admonition 	[i.e., 	"private reprimand" under 	Rule 	9(a)(4) 	of 	the 	Rules 	of
Disciplinary 	Procedure] 	is 	generally 	appropriate 	when 	a 	lawyer 	is
negligent 	and 	does 	not 	act 	with 	reasonable 	diligence 	in 	representing 	a
client, 	and 	causes 	little 	or 	no 	actual 	or 	potential 	injury 	to 	a 	client.
gravating 	and 	mitigating 	factors, 	the 	presumptive 	sanction 	is 	a 	suspension.
4

13. 	Aggravating 	and 	mitigating 	factors. 	ABA 	Standard 	9.0, 	entitled 	"Aggravation
and Mitigation," provides 	as 	follows:
9.1 	Generally
After 	misconduct 	has 	been 	established, 	aggravating 	and 	mitigating 	cir-
cumstances 	may 	be 	considered 	in 	deciding 	what 	sanction 	to 	impose.
9.2 	Aggravation
9.21 	Definition. 	Aggravation 	or 	aggravating 	circumstances 	are 	any 	consid-
erations 	or 	factors 	that 	may 	justify 	an 	increase 	in 	the 	degree 	of 	disci-
pline 	to 	be 	imposed.
9.22 	Factors 	which 	may 	be 	considered 	in 	aggravation. 	Aggravating 	factors
include:
(a) 	prior 	disciplinary 	offenses;
(b) 	dishonest 	or 	selfish 	motive;
(c) 	a 	pattern 	of misconduct;
(d) 	multiple 	offenses;
(e) 	bad 	faith 	obstruction 	of the 	disciplinary 	proceeding 	by 	intentional-
ly 	failing 	to 	comply 	with 	rules 	or 	orders 	of the 	disciplinary 	agency;
(f) 	submission 	of 	false 	evidence, 	false 	statements, 	or 	other 	deceptive
practices 	during 	the 	disciplinary 	process;
(g) 	refusal 	to 	acknowledge 	wrongful 	nature 	of conduct;
(h) 	vulnerability 	of the 	victim;
(i) 	substantial 	experience 	in 	the 	practice 	of law;
(j) 	indifference 	in 	making 	restitution; 	and
(k) 	illegal 	conduct, 	including 	that 	involving 	the 	use 	of 	controlled 	sub-
stances.
9.3 	Mitigation.
9.31 	Definition. 	Mitigation 	or 	mitigating 	circumstances 	are 	any 	considera-
tions 	or 	factors 	that 	may 	justify 	a 	reduction 	in 	the 	degree 	of 	discipline
to 	be 	imposed.
9.32 	Factors 	which 	may 	be 	considered 	in 	mitigation. 	Mitigating 	factors 	in-
clude:
(a) 	absence 	of a 	prior 	disciplinary 	record;
(b) 	absence 	of a 	dishonest 	or 	selfish 	motive;
(c) 	personal 	or 	emotional 	problems;
(d) 	timely 	good 	faith 	effort 	to 	make restitution 	or 	to 	rectify 	conse-
quences 	of misconduct;
(e) 	full 	and 	free 	disclosure 	of disciplinary 	board 	or 	cooperative 	attitude
toward 	proceedings;
(f) 	inexperience 	in 	the 	practice 	of law;
(g) 	character 	or 	reputation;
(h) 	physical 	disability;
(i) 	mental 	disability 	or 	chemical 	dependency 	including 	alcoholism 	or
drug 	abuse 	when:
5

(1) 	there 	is 	medical 	evidence 	that 	the 	respondent 	is 	affected 	by 	a
chemical 	dependency 	or 	mental 	disability;
(2) 	the 	chemical 	dependency 	or 	mental 	disability 	caused 	the 	mis-
conduct;
(3) 	the 	respondent's 	recovery 	from 	the 	chemical 	dependency 	or
mental 	disability 	is 	demonstrated 	by 	a 	meaningful 	and 	sus-
tained 	period 	of successful 	rehabilitation; 	and
(4) 	the 	recovery 	arrested 	the 	misconduct 	and 	recurrence 	of 	that
misconduct 	is 	unlikely.
(j) 	delay 	in 	disciplinary 	proceedings;
(k) 	imposition 	of other 	penalties 	or 	sanctions;
(1) 	remorse; 	and
(m) 	remoteness 	of prior 	offenses.
9.4 	Factors 	Which 	Are 	Neither 	Aggravating 	nor 	Mitigating.
The 	following 	factors 	should 	not 	be 	considered 	as 	either 	aggravating 	nor
mitigating:
(a) 	forced 	or 	compelled 	restitution;
(b) 	agreeing 	to 	the 	client's 	demand 	for 	certain 	improper 	behavior 	or 	result;
(c) 	withdrawal 	of complaint 	against 	the 	lawyer;
(d) 	resignation 	prior 	to 	completion 	of disciplinary 	proceedings;
(e) 	complainant's 	recommendation 	as 	to 	sanction; 	and
(f) 	failure 	of injured 	client 	to 	complain.
The 	parties 	agree, 	and 	the 	Review 	Panel 	so 	finds 	that 	in 	Respondent's 	case, 	the 	only 	aggravating
factor 	is 	a 	pattern 	of 	misconduct. 	Respondent 	has 	implemented 	sensible 	measures 	to 	guard
against 	a 	recurrence 	of 	such 	misconduct. 	The 	parties 	further 	agree 	that 	other 	mitigating 	factors
include 	absence 	of 	a 	prior 	disciplinary 	record, 	personal 	problems 	and 	remorse. 	In 	addition, 	the
parties 	agree, 	and 	the 	Review 	Panel 	so 	finds 	that 	taken 	together, 	these 	mitigating 	factors 	justify
reducing 	the 	presumptive 	sanction 	for 	Respondent's 	misconduct 	from 	a 	suspension 	to 	a 	public
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 the 	Court 	issues
an 	Order 	of Public 	Censure 	in 	accordance 	herewith, 	Bar 	Counsel 	and 	Respondent 	have 	agreed 	to
the 	following 	press 	release:
6

The 	Wyoming 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	issued 	an 	order 	of 	public 	censure 	of
Gillette 	attorney 	Corrie 	Lynn 	Lamb. 	The 	order 	stems 	from 	Ms. 	Lamb's 	conduct 	in
failing 	to 	appear 	at 	multiple 	hearings 	as 	well 	as 	other 	violations 	of Wyoming 	Rule
of Professional 	Conduct 	1.3, 	which 	requires 	that 	attorneys 	act 	with 	reasonable 	dil-
igence 	and 	promptness 	in 	representing 	a 	client. 	Following 	Bar 	Counsel's 	investi-
gation 	of 	reports 	received 	from 	a 	number 	of 	Gillette 	judges, 	the 	parties 	reached 	a
stipulation 	that 	Ms. 	Lamb 	had 	committed 	multiple 	violations 	of 	her 	obligation 	of
diligence 	and 	agreed 	that 	a 	public 	censure 	was 	the 	appropriate 	sanction 	for 	such
conduct. 	The parties' stipulated 	resolution 	was 	approved 	by 	the 	Board 	of 	Profes-
sional 	Responsibility 	(BPR) 	of 	the 	Wyoming 	State 	Bar 	and 	was 	submitted 	to 	the
Wyoming 	Supreme 	Court. 	In 	adopting 	the 	BPR's 	recommendation 	for 	a 	public
censure, 	the 	Court 	ordered 	Ms. Lamb 	to 	pay 	an 	administrative 	fee 	of 	$750.00 	and
costs 	in 	the 	amount 	of $50.00 	to 	the 	Wyoming 	State 	Bar.
Recommendation
In 	consideration 	of the 	foregoing 	findings, 	the 	Review 	Panel 	recommends 	as 	follows:
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 	be 	issued.
3. 	That 	Respondent 	be 	required 	to 	pay 	an 	administrative 	fee 	of 	$750.00 	and 	costs 	of
$50.00 	to 	the 	Wyoming 	State 	Bar 	within 	10 	days 	of such 	order.
Dated 	this 	30 	of September, 	2026.
a
SPLW. 	Thomas 	Sullins, 	Chair
Review 	Panel 	of 	the 	Board 	of 	Professional
Responsibility
Wyoming 	State 	Bar
7