I was concerned, when I prepared my complaint against Secretary of State Chuck Gray for disclosing the confidential voter registration lists with personal information about every registered voter in Wyoming. Why?
Because the Wyoming Election Code required that complaint to be filed with the Wyoming Attorney General, Keith Kautz.
While I have long known and respected Attorney General Kautz based my experiences with him when he was a lawyer, judge and justice, I also knew that Gray had publicly bragged about his “close consultation” with the attorney general on this very issue.
Gray had even claimed that the attorney general approved the release of confidential voter information to the federal Department of Justice.
Attorneys owe a duty of loyalty to their clients. When the attorney general advises Gray, Gray is the client.
However, Gray was the target of my complaint. Now the attorney general would have a duty to investigate Gray on behalf of a different client, the people of the State of Wyoming. Now he would owe his duty of loyalty to us.
No one can serve two masters, especially when the interests of those masters conflict. A continuing duty of loyalty to Gray compromises the attorney general’s ability to fulfill the public duties he owes to the people of Wyoming.
I have asked the attorney general to hand this case to an independent, disinterested, special prosecutor, someone who will not be encumbered with any conflicting duty owed to Gray. I didn’t make this request because I necessarily believed Gray’s self-serving boasts, but rather because anyone charged with the responsibility to investigate allegations of crime involving another public official must avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Wyoming lawyers are familiar with Rule 1.7 of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys, which says, “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”
Wyoming lawyers know they have a duty to identify possible conflicts and to resolve them promptly without prejudicing their clients.
What has the attorney general done to address this conflict?
On April 20, Attorney General Kautz emailed me acknowledging receipt of my complaint. He then added, “We will address [the complaint] in accordance with our office policies, the law and the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law.” When I wrote back to ask about those office policies, I received this terse reply: “There are no written policies. No response will be forthcoming.”
Next, I received a letter from a deputy attorney general defending Gray’s continuing refusal to produce public records about his close consultations with the attorney general. Clearly the attorney general’s office was continuing to represent Gray in related matter, but what was happening to my complaint? What had been done to address the conflict of interest and refer this matter to a special prosecutor?
I wrote the attorney general’s office. I cited Rule 1.7 and other sources, which instruct prosecutors not to get involved in matters in which the prosecutor previously participated, personally and substantially, while acting as a non-prosecutor.
I asked to speak directly with the attorney general. I was told that he was unavailable and would be unavailable to speak with me in the foreseeable future.
Then, I received another email from the attorney general. It read, “This response is not an invitation for further communication. A prosecutor's investigation and exercise of prosecutorial discretion are not conducted in the public square. I previously told you that your complaint would be addressed in accordance with our office policies, the law and the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law.”
I understand the need for prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have an awesome power and must exercise it carefully.
But the attorney general, just like every other attorney, has a duty to recognize conflicts of interest. No lawyer has discretion to ignore these rules.
The people of Wyoming deserve an open, thorough and transparent investigation, but first this conflict of interest must be resolved and removed by the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Back in August 2025, it only took Gray two weeks to make his decision to release the confidential voter information.
More than three weeks have passed since I filed my complaint and highlighted the conflict of interest.
How much longer should the people of Wyoming have to wait for the attorney general to follow the rules, acknowledge the conflict and appoint a special prosecutor?
George Powers is a retired attorney in Cheyenne. For forty years, Mr. Powers’ practice primarily focused on civil trial and appellate litigation throughout the State of Wyoming with areas of special interest including medical malpractice, insurance claims and railroad litigation.
