ANNOTATIONSCOMMENT
Legal knowledge and skill
In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite knowledge
and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors include the relative
complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general
experience, the lawyer's training and experience in the field in
question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the
matter and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate
or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field in
question. In many instances, the required proficiency is that of a
general practitioner. Expertise in a particular field of law may be required
in some circumstances.
While the licensing of a lawyer is evidence that the lawyer has
met the standards then prevailing for admission to the bar, a lawyer
generally should not accept employment in any area of the law in which
the lawyer is not qualified. However, a lawyer may accept such
employment if in good faith the lawyer expects to become qualified
through study and investigation, as long as such preparation would not
result in unreasonable delay or expense to clients. Proper preparation
and representation may require the association by the lawyer of
professionals in other disciplines. A lawyer offered employment in a
matter in which the lawyer is not and does not expect to become so
qualified should either decline the employment or, with the consent of
the client, accept the employment and associate with a lawyer who is
competent in the matter.
In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter
in which the lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required where
referral to or consultation or association with another lawyer would be
impractical. Even in an emergency, however, assistance should be
limited to that reasonably necessary in the circumstances, for ill considered
action under emergency conditions can jeopardize the client's interest.
A lawyer may accept representation where the requisite level of
competence can be achieved by reasonable preparation. This applies as
well to a lawyer who is appointed counsel for an unrepresented person.
Thoroughness and Preparation
Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into
and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use
of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent
practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation. The required
attention and preparation are determined in part by what is at stake;
major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more
elaborate treatment than matters of lesser consequence.
Because of a lawyer's vital role in the legal process, a lawyer
should act with competence and proper care in representing clients. The
lawyer should strive to become and remain proficient in law practice and
should accept employment only in matters in which the lawyer is or
intends to become competent to handle.
Maintaining Competence
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should
engage in continuing study and education. If a system of peer review
has been established, the lawyer should use it in appropriate
circumstances.
A lawyer is aided in attaining and maintaining competence by
keeping abreast of current legal literature and developments,
participating in continuing legal education programs, concentrating in
particular areas of the law, and by utilizing other available means. A
lawyer has the additional ethical obligation to assist in improving the
legal profession, and may do so by participating in bar activities
intended to advance the quality and standards of members of the
profession. Of particular importance is the careful training of younger
associates and giving sound guidance to all lawyers who consult the
lawyer. In short, a lawyer should strive at all levels to aid the legal
profession in advancing the highest possible standards of integrity and
competence and to personally meet those standards.
Having undertaken representation, a lawyer should use proper care
to safeguard the interests of the client. If a lawyer has accepted
employment in a matter beyond the lawyer's competence but in which the
lawyer is expected to become competent, the lawyer should diligently
undertake the work and study necessary to qualify. In addition to being
qualified to handle a particular matter, the lawyer's obligation to the
client requires the lawyer to prepare adequately for and give
appropriate attention to all legal work.
Lawyers should have pride in their professional endeavors. The
lawyer's obligation to act competently calls for higher motivation than
that arising from fear of civil liability or disciplinary penalty.
COMMITTEE COMMENT
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility deals with
competent representation but defines competence negatively. Model Rule
1.1 more fully particularizes the elements of competence and does so
affirmatively by requiring that the lawyer be competent.
The Committee integrated salutary provisions of the Ethical
Considerations found in the Code into the Comments to Rule 1.1.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Representing the Debtor: Counsel Beware!",
see 23 Colo. Law. 539 (1994).
Annotator's note.
Rule 1.1 is similar to DR 6-101 as it
existed prior to the 1992 repeal and reenactment of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Relevant cases construing that provision have
been included in the annotations to this rule.
Disbarment was appropriate discipline for attorney who borrowed or
otherwise obtained money from elderly and vulnerable client where attorney
failed (a) to disclose that the likelihood of repayment was remote and the
inadequacy of
security purportedly given to secure loans; (b) to provide client with adequate
legal documentation to ensure repayment; and (c) to obtain client's consent to
possible conflicts of interest. People v. Schindelar, 845 P.2d 1146 (Colo.
1993).
One-year and one-day suspension warranted where respondent failed to
serve a cross-claim, failed to respond to several motions, failed to keep
client informed, advanced defense that was not warranted by the facts and
existing law, and misrepresented to client the basis for the judgment in
favor of the opposing party. People v. Genchi, 849 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993).
Forty-five-day suspension warranted where respondent neglected child custody
matter and had a prior public censure, a prior admonishment, and prior suspensions, but
where the respondent did not demonstrate a dishonest or selfish motive and exhibited a
cooperative attitude and expressions of remorse. People v. Dowhan, 951 P.2d 905 (Colo.
1998).
Attorney's neglect resulting in an untimely filing of an inadequate certificate of
review and dismissal of his client's case, combined with fact that certificate contained false
statements of material fact that attorney later repeated to an investigative counsel with the
office of disciplinary counsel warranted a 45-day suspension, despite mitigating factors.
People v. Porter, 980 P.2d 536 (Colo. 1999).
Neglecting to file response to motion for summary judgment and to return
client files upon request was sufficient to result in one-year and one-day
suspension.
People v. Honaker, 847 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1993).
Thirty-day suspension warranted where attorney, with previous history
of discipline and experience in practicing law, neglected a civil rights suit
by failing to provide an accounting with respect to fees charged and by
failing to return unearned fees. People v. Fritsche, 849 P.2d 31 (Colo.
1993).
Stipulated agreement and recommendation of suspension for 30 days based upon
conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who committed unfair
insurance claim settlement practices and tortious conduct in handling insurance investigation
of fire claim that he was not competent to handle. People v. McClung, 953 P.2d 1282 (Colo.
1998).
Attorney's inaction over a period of more than two years and other
disciplinary violations warrant suspension for thirty days where there are
mitigating factors. People v. LaSalle, 848 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1993).
Thirty-day suspension was appropriate discipline where attorney advised client
to take action in violation of child custody order but failed to warn her of criminal
consequences of such action. People v. Aron, 962 P.2d 261 (Colo. 1998).
Public censure warranted where respondent negligently filed an
involuntary bankruptcy
petition that was ill-advised and without factual or legal basis.
Mitigating factors included
the fact that respondent's mental state was one of negligence rather than
knowing misconduct,
respondent had not been disciplined before, and respondent cooperated in
the discipline action.
People v. Moskowitz, 944 P.2d 76 (Colo. 1997).
Public censure appropriate where harm suffered by attorney's client was
speculative, attorney retracted his misrepresentations and admitted to his
client before the institution of disciplinary proceedings that he had done
nothing on the client's appeal, attorney had no prior discipline, he made full
and free disclosure of his misconduct to the grievance committee, and he
expressed remorse for his misconduct. People v. Nelson, 848 P.2d 351 (Colo.
1993).
Public censure appropriate where attorney failed to review district
attorney's file
and the transcript of the preliminary hearing before trial. People v.
Bonner, 927
P.2d 836 (Colo. 1996).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules
is sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Doherty, 908 P.2d 1120
(Colo. 1996); People v. Doherty, 945 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997);
People v. Kolko, 962 P.2d 979 (Colo. 1998).
Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify public censure.
People v. Smith, 847 P.2d 1154 (Colo. 1993).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules
is sufficient to justify suspension.
People v. Hohertz, 926 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1996);
People v. Dieters, 935 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1997);
People v. Primavera, 942 P.2d 496 (Colo. 1997);
In re Tolley, 975 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1999).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other
disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v.
Walsh, 880 P.2d 766 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Roybal, 949 P.2d 993 (Colo. 1997).
Cases Decided Under Former DR 6-101.
I.General Consideration.
II.Disciplinary Actions.
A.Public Censure.
B.Suspension.
C.Disbarment.
I.GENERAL CONSIDERATION.
Law reviews.
For article, "Criminal Procedure", which discusses recent Tenth Circuit
decisions dealing with effective assistance of counsel, see 61 Den. L.J. 303 (1984).
For article, "Third-Party Malpractice Claims Against Real Estate Lawyers",
see 13 Colo. Law. 996 (1984).
License to practice law assures public that the lawyer who holds the
license will perform basic legal tasks honestly and without undue delay,
in accordance with the highest standards of professional conduct. People
v. Witt, 200 Colo. 522, 616 P.2d 139 (1980);
People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981).
Attorney has burden of proving his own incompetence. Attorney who is
appointed to represent criminal defendant and who believes he is
incompetent to handle case has burden of proving his incompetence to the court and if
attorney carries the burden, the trial court must decide whether attorney
is capable of becoming competent on his own or whether appointment of
co-counsel is necessary until attorney becomes competent. Stern v. County
Court, 773 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1989).
Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by court-appointed attorney
is premature before representation has occurred and, therefore, attorney
was not entitled to withdraw from case. Stern v. County Court, 773 P.2d
1074 (Colo. 1989).
Public expects appropriate discipline for misconduct.
The public has a right to expect that one who engages in professional
misconduct will be disciplined appropriately. People v. Witt, 200 Colo.
522, 616 P.2d 139 (1980); People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981).
An attorney's personal problems cannot excuse his negligence
or professional misconduct, for discipline is required not only to
punish the attorney but also to protect the public.
People v. Morgan, 194 Colo. 260, 574 P.2d 79 (1977);
People v. Belina, 765 P.2d 121 (Colo. 1988).
The right to effective assistance of counsel is not
a right to acquittal. Morse v. People, 180 Colo. 49, 501 P.2d 1328 (1972).
When cross-examination is permitted by defense counsel on previous
felony convictions that the defendant has suffered without a prior foundation
which establishes that defendant had counsel at the time he was convicted,
counsel's representation is competent when the defendant brought his prior
convictions to the jury's attention and made no claim that he was not
represented by counsel. Steward v. People, 179 Colo. 31, 498 P.2d 933 (1972).
Agreeing to have depositions read at trial, rather than to have
forceful live testimony, is a trial strategy decision for counsel.
Morse v. People, 180 Colo. 49, 501 P.2d 1328 (1972).
Clients' business simply must be processed in apt
time. People v. Bailey, 180 Colo. 211,
503 P.2d 1023 (1972).
Lawyer owes obligation to client to act with diligence in handling
his client's legal work and in his representation of his client in court.
People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980);
People v. Pooley, 774 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1989).
An attorney violates his obligations to his client
in not filing suit until almost four years after retained, in not proceeding
with the lawsuit during the period thereafter, in not procuring the client's
permission to transfer the case to another attorney, and in not supervising
its handling by that attorney, all of which actions constitute gross
negligence and unprofessional conduct. People v. Zelinger, 179 Colo. 379,
504 P.2d 668 (1972).
A lawyer's failure to prepare a will for at least eight
months after being employed to do so, especially where client is aged
person, is grossly negligent and shows total lack of responsibility.
People v. James, 180 Colo. 133, 502 P.2d 1105 (1972).
Attorney's only preparation for hearing in dissolution of marriage
action occurring in car on way to courthouse constituted handling a legal
matter without adequate preparation in violation of this rule. People v.
Felker, 770 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1989).
Attorney violated this rule and C.R.P.C. 8.4(d) when he prepared and
filed child support worksheets that failed to properly reflect the new
stipulation concerning custody. People v. Davies, 926 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1996).
Suspension for one year and one day was warranted for attorney who
violated this rule and C.R.P.C. 8.4(d) by preparing and filing child
support worksheets that failed to properly reflect the new stipulation
concerning custody and where aggravating factors included a previous
disciplinary history and failure to appear in the grievance proceedings.
People v. Davies, 926 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1996).
Attorney violated this rule by taking no action on client's tort
claim and by failing to file client's workers' compensation claim until
July, 1985, although retained in 1984 to do so. People v. Felker, 770 P.2d 402 (Colo.
1989).
Attorney neglected legal matter entrusted to her by taking no action
on client's claim which resulted in claim being barred by the statute of
limitations. People v. Felker, 770 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1989).
Hindsight cannot replace a decision which counsel makes in the heat
of trial. Morse v. People, 180 Colo. 49, 501 P.2d 1328 (1972).
There was insufficient evidence to establish incompetence
of defense counsel. See Morse v. People, 180 Colo. 49,
501 P.2d 1328 (1972).
Conduct found to violate disciplinary rules. People v. Bugg, 635
P.2d 881 (Colo. 1981); People v. Razatos, 636 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1981),
appeal dismissed, 455 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1415, 71 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982);
People v. Goss, 646 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Ross, 810 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1991).
Applied in
People v. Leader, 193 Colo. 402, 567 P.2d 800 (1977);
People v. Good, 195 Colo. 177, 576 P.2d 1020 (1978);
People v. McMichael, 196 Colo. 128, 586 P.2d 1 (1978);
People v. Susman, 196 Colo. 458, 587 P.2d 782 (1978);
People v. Cameron, 197 Colo. 330, 595 P.2d 677 (1979);
People v. Pacheco, 198 Colo. 455, 608 P.2d 333 (1979);
People v. Pacheco, 199 Colo. 108, 608 P.2d 334 (1979);
People ex rel. Silverman v. Anderson, 200 Colo. 76, 612 P.2d 94 (1980);
People v. Barbour, 199 Colo. 126, 612 P.2d 1082 (1980);
People v. Hilgers, 200 Colo. 211, 612 P.2d 1134 (1980);
People v. Haddock, 200 Colo. 218, 613 P.2d 335 (1980);
People v. Lanza, 200 Colo. 241, 613 P.2d 337 (1980);
People v. Meldahl, 200 Colo. 332, 615 P.2d 29 (1980);
People v. Dixon, 200 Colo. 520, 616 P.2d 103 (1980);
People ex rel. Cortez v. Calvert, 200 Colo. 157, 617 P.2d 797 (1980);
People v. Hurst, 200 Colo. 537, 618 P.2d 1113 (1980);
People v. Gottsegen, 623 P.2d 878 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Dutton, 629 P.2d 103 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Wright, 638 P.2d 251 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Hebeler, 638 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Archuleta, 638 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Gellenthien, 638 P.2d 295 (Colo. 1981);
People v. Barbour, 639 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1983);
People v. Bollinger, 681 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1984);
People v. Underhill, 683 P.2d 349 (Colo. 1984);
People v. Simon, 698 P.2d 228 (Colo. 1985);
People v. Blanck, 700 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1985);
People v. Gerdes, 782 P.2d 2 (Colo. 1989).
II.DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
A.Public Censure.
When a lawyer is negligent in handling estates, a public reprimand
is warranted for his dereliction of duty. People v. Bailey, 180 Colo. 211,
503 P.2d 1023 (1972).
Attorney was negligent in closing two different estates in an untimely
manner. Public censure is an appropriate sanction 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. People v. Gebauer, 821 P.2d
782 (Colo. 1991).
Undertaking to provide services to clients in areas in which one lacks
experience, which would ordinarily result in a reprimand, warrants a
30-day suspension when coupled with continued neglect after private
censure. People v. Frank, 752 P.2d 539 (Colo. 1988).
Delay in handling and closing decedents' estates and failure to
properly prepare inheritance tax returns, following prior letters of
admonition, justify public censure. People v. Clark, 681 P.2d 482 (Colo.
1984).
An attorney's neglect and delay in handling an adoption proceeding,
considered with other circumstances, justified public censure.
People v. Moore, 681 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984).
Neglect of a legal matter ordinarily warranting a letter of admonition
by way of reprimand requires the imposition of public censure when such
conduct is repeated after three letters of admonition. People v.
Goodwin, 782 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1989).
Evidence sufficient to warrant public reprimand for dereliction
of duty. People v. Atencio, 177 Colo. 439, 494 P.2d 837 (1972);
People v. Zelinger, 179 Colo. 379, 504 P.2d 668 (1972).
Failure to obtain an order for service by publication, failing to return
client phone calls, and failure to set a case for trial justify public
censure. People v. Barr, 805 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1991).
Public censure for failure to promptly distribute proceeds of a
settlement is warranted since respondent's negligence did little or no
actual or potential injury to client. People v. Genchi, 824 P.2d 815
(Colo. 1992).
Public censure appropriate where attorney delayed hiring
experts for case, neglected to familiarize himself and comply with
the criminal discovery rules, inadequately prepared for trial, and
proceeded to trial without knowing whether his own experts'
testimony would support his client's defense. People v. Silvola,
888 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1995).
Public censure was appropriate where attorney's failure to
appear at three hearings and to timely return a stipulation violated
DR 1-102(A)(5) and, in aggravation, there was a pattern of
misconduct. People v. Cabral, 888 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1995).
Public censure justified where attorney failed to attend to
bankruptcy proceeding and scheduled meetings, failed to timely file
pleadings and responses, and allowed his paralegal to engage in
unauthorized practice of law. People v. Fry, 875 P.2d 222 (Colo.
1994).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules
is sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Ashley, 796 P.2d 962
(Colo. 1990);
People v. Nichols, 796 P.2d 966 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Smith, 819 P.2d 497 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Odom, 829 P.2d 855 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Sadler, 831 P.2d 887 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Fry, 875 P.2d 222 (Colo. 1994);
People v. O'Donnell, 955 P.2d 53 (Colo. 1998).
Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify public censure.
People v. Driscoll, 716 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Mayer, 716 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Carpenter, 731 P.2d 726 (Colo. 1987);
People v. Wilson, 745 P.2d 248 (Colo. 1987);
People v. Smith, 757 P.2d 628 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Dowhan, 759 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Smith, 769 P.2d 1078 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Baird, 772 P.2d 110 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Fieman, 788 P.2d 830 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Good, 790 P.2d 331 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Brinn, 801 P.2d 1195 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Moffitt, 801 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Richardson, 820 P.2d 1120 (Colo 1991);
People v. Odom, 829 P.2d 855 (Colo. 1992).
B.Suspension.
The failure for more than five years to record a deed and to return
it and the abstract constitutes gross professional negligence and
carelessness warranting a suspension of one year from the practice of law.
People v. James, 176 Colo. 299, 490 P.2d 291 (1971).
Where an attorney misrepresents to a client that he has
filed a case, fails for two years to take action on behalf of another
client, and, knowing that a hearing had been set on charges against
him, deliberately leaves the jurisdiction of the court without making
any arrangements with the grievance committee and without arranging for
representation, his conduct warrants suspension from the bar.
People v. Kane, 177 Colo. 378, 494 P.2d 96 (1972).
Where counsel appears to be totally oblivious
to obligations to render the services for which he is paid, this crass
irresponsibility or callous indifference in the handling of a
client's affairs is inexcusable under any circumstances and warrants
indefinite suspension from the bar. People v. Van Nocker, 176 Colo. 354,
490 P.2d 697 (1971).
Attorney suspended for three years for repeated neglect and delay in
handling legal matters, failure to comply with the directions contained in
a letter of admonition, and failure to answer letter
of complaint from the grievance committee constitute a violation of this
rule, and, with other offenses of the code of professional responsibility.
People v. Hebenstreit, 764 P.2d 51 (Colo. 1988).
Suspension of lawyer for three years, which is the longest possible period
for suspension, is appropriate where there was extensive pattern of client
neglect and intentional deception in client matters over a period of
years. Anything less would be too lenient. People v. Hellewell, 811 P.2d
386 (Colo. 1991).
Suspension for three years is appropriate where lawyer failed to respond to
motions or appear at hearing, resulting in dismissal of clients' bankruptcy
proceeding, thereby increasing clients' debts tenfold. The hearing board
further found
that the attorney engaged in bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary
proceedings and refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct or
the vulnerability of his clients. People v. Farrant, 883 P.2d 1 (Colo.
1994).
Suspension for one year and one day warranted for attorney who
"represented" client for a period of 19 months without that person's
knowledge or consent, even asserting a counterclaim on his behalf without
talking to him; who did not communicate with him in any manner for an
extended period of time and then did not withdraw within a reasonable time
after being unable to contact him; and who failed to answer discovery
requests, resulting in the entries of default and then a default judgment
against him. People v. Silvola, 915 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1996).
Disbarment not warranted where there was mitigating evidence
concerning attorney's mental and physical disabilities. Instead, the board
imposed a three-year suspension with a condition for reinstatement that
professional medical
evidence be presented that the disabilities do not interfere with the
attorney's ability to practice law. People v. Stewart, 892 P.2d 875 (Colo.
1995).
Suspension for three years, the longest period available, was
appropriate in case where violation of this rule and others would otherwise
have justified disbarment but mitigating factors included personal and
emotional problems, interim rehabilitation, and remorse. People v. McCaffrey, 925 P.2d 269
(Colo. 1996).
Suspension for three years, rather than disbarment, was appropriate where
violation of this rule and others caused serious harm to attorney's clients, but mitigating
factors were present, including no previous discipline in 14 years of practice, personal and
emotional problems, and cooperation and demonstrated remorse in proceedings. People v.
Henderson, 967 P.2d 1038 (Colo. 1998).
Eighteen-month suspension warranted where attorney failed to notify
client of an actual conflict of interest and subsequently neglected a matter,
but did so without dishonest or selfish motive. People v. Watson, 833 P.2d
50 (Colo. 1992).
Failure to appear after accepting retainer justifies suspension.
Where, after accepting a retainer for the defense of an action, an attorney
failed to appear or advise his client of the fact that he was not going to
appear and thereby prejudiced his client's case, the attorney's conduct
violated the code of professional responsibility and C.R.C.P. 241.6.
People v. Southern, 638 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1982).
Failure to respond to repeated inquiries from client and client's
parents, failure to monitor client's case in the court system, including
failure to respond to calls from the court clerk, and failure to return
client's urgent calls after client was arrested and jailed constitutes a
pattern of neglect and warrants 30 day suspension.
People v. O'Leary, 752 P.2d 530 (Colo. 1988).
Suspension is fitting sanction when lawyer knowingly fails to perform
services for a client and thereby causes injury to such client. People
v. Masson, 782 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1988).
Initiation of unnecessary proceeding and legal incompetence warrant
suspension. Where lawyer initiates unnecessary probate proceeding, as
well as fails to meet minimum standards of legal competence for corporate
and mining law problems which he has undertaken, his professional
misconduct warrants suspension from the bar. People ex rel. Goldberg v.
Gordon, 199 Colo. 296, 607 P.2d 995 (1980).
Failure to designate record on appeal,
causing nine-month delay in criminal appeal, considered with other
violations, justifies suspension. People v. May, 745 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1987).
Suspension is appropriate discipline given number and severity of
instances of misconduct, including pattern of neglect over clients' affairs
over lengthy period and in variety of circumstance and misrepresentation
in dissolution case to client who wished to remarry concerning the filing
of a dissolution petition. Considering misconduct in light of proper
mitigating factors, suspension was appropriate. People v. Griffin, 764
P.2d 1166 (Colo. 1988).
There is evidence to warrant indefinite suspension.
People v. Stewart, 178 Colo. 352, 497 P.2d 1003 (1972).
More severe sanction of 90-day suspension rather than public censure
appropriate discipline for attorney who neglected client matter, caused
potential injury to client, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the
administration
of justice when aggravated by a history of five prior instances of
disciplinary
offenses for neglect, pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge wrongful
nature of conduct, vulnerability of victim, and substantial experience in
the practice of law. People v. Dolan, 813 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1991).
Pattern of inaction, including failure to perform adequate research on
statute of limitations problem, violated sections (A)(2) and (A)(3) and other
disciplinary rules, justifying six-month suspension. People v. Barber, 799
P.2d 936 (Colo. 1990).
Failing to resolve an inability to proceed on behalf of a client,
neglecting to respond to communications from the grievance committee,
failing to fulfill commitments made to the investigator for the
disciplinary counsel, and misrepresenting to such investigator the status
of the case under investigation is conduct warranting suspension. People
v. Chappell, 783 P.2d 838 (Colo. 1989).
Failing to obtain substitute counsel after accepting a retainer while
under suspension constitutes neglect of a legal matter. People v. Redman, 819
P.2d 495 (Colo. 1991).
Failure to file bankruptcy petition
warrants suspension from the practice of law
for a period of 90 days.
The respondent's misconduct was compounded by
his prolonged refusal to respond to his client's inquiries
and his failure to inform his client of domicile issues
bearing on her desire to obtain a discharge in bankruptcy in Colorado.
People v. Cain, 791 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1990).
Delay in filing bankruptcy petition and failing to file complaint or
return retainer warrants six-month suspension. People v. Archuleta, 898
P.2d 1064 (Colo. 1995).
Suspension for one year and one day warranted where attorney
misrepresented to client that a trial had been scheduled, that
continuances and new trial settings had been made, that a settlement
had been reached, and where the attorney's previous, similar
discipline, was a significant aggravating factor. People v. Smith,
888 P.2d 248 (Colo. 1995).
Suspension for one year and one day warranted for attorney who
"represented" client for a period of 19 months without that person's
knowledge or consent, even asserting a counterclaim on his behalf without
talking to him; who did not communicate with him in any manner for an
extended period of time and then did not withdraw within a reasonable time
after being unable to contact him; and who failed to answer discovery
requests, resulting in the entries of default and then a default judgment
against him. People v. Silvola, 915 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1996).
Failure to communicate with clients, court, and opposing counsel,
misrepresentation of the status of the proceedings to client, failure to
investigate clients' case, failure to attend one hearing and being late for
another
hearing, and refusing client an accounting and a refund of the unused portion
of attorney fee, justifies three-year suspension. People v. Wilson, 814 P.2d
791 (Colo. 1991).
Ninety-day suspension warranted where attorney neglected client's legal
matter, failed to pay for court reporting services, and showed complete
disregard of grievance proceedings. People v. Whitaker, 814 P.2d 812 (Colo.
1991).
Suspension for 90 days is warranted for attorney's continued practice of
law during a period of suspension in view of prior record and substantial
experience in practice of law even if attorney incorrectly believed that he had
been reinstated. People v. Dieters, 883 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1994).
Suspension of one year and one day warranted for attorney whose
misconduct
included neglect of legal matter, failure to seek lawful objectives of
client,
intentional failure to carry out employment contract resulting in
intentional prejudice or damage to client, and who also pled guilty to
class 5
felony of failure to pay employee income tax withheld. People v. Franks, 866
P.2d 1375 (Colo. 1994).
Absent mitigating or aggravating factors, suspension appropriate when
a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client or engages in a
pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. People
v. Glaess, 884 P.2d 722 (Colo. 1994).
It was appropriate to require an attorney to petition for reinstatement
under C.R.C.P. 241.22 (b) to (d), even though his period of suspension for
violating section (A)(3) did not exceed one year, where the extraordinary
number
of previous matters in which the attorney was cited for neglect showed the
need
for a demonstration that he had been rehabilitated. People v. C De Baca, 862
P.2d 273 (Colo. 1993).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other
disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension.
People v. Moya, 793 P.2d 1154 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Creasey, 793 P.2d 1159 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Schmad, 793 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Baptie, 796 P.2d 978 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Garrett, 802 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Rhodes, 803 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Flores, 804 P.2d 192 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Crimaldi, 804 P.2d 863 (Colo. 1991),
854 P.2d 782 (Colo. 1993);
People v. Dunsmoor, 807 P.2d 561 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Hall, 810 P.2d 1069 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Koeberle, 810 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Gaimara, 810 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Dash, 811 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Honaker, 814 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Heilbrunn, 814 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Anderson, 817 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Redman, 819 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Smith, 828 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Hyland, 830 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Smith, 830 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Raubolt, 831 P.2d 462 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Regan, 831 P.2d 893 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Southern, 832 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Denton, 839 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Hindorff, 860 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1993);
People v. Stevens, 866 P.2d 1378 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Butler, 875 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Cole, 880 P.2d 158 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Smith, 880 P.2d 763 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Kardokus, 881 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Johnson, 881 P.2d 1205 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Pittam, 889 P.2d 678 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Swan, 893 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Banman, 901 P.2d 469 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Crews, 901 P.2d 472 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Dickinson, 903 P.2d 1132 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Davis, 911 P.2d 45 (Colo. 1996);
People v. Calvert, 915 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1996).
Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify suspension.
People v. Yaklich, 646 P.2d 938 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Pilgrim, 698 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1985);
People v. Convery, 704 P.2d 296 (Colo. 1985);
People v. Foster, 716 P.2d 1069 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Barnett, 716 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Fleming, 716 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Larson, 716 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1986);
People v. McDowell, 718 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Yost, 729 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Holmes, 731 P.2d 677 (Colo. 1987);
People v. Turner, 746 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1987);
People v. Yost, 752 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Convery, 758 P.2d 1338 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Lustig, 758 P.2d 1342 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Goens, 770 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Dolan, 771 P.2d 505 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Flores, 772 P.2d 610 (Colo. App. 1989);
People v. Emeson, 775 P.2d 1166 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Hodge, 782 P.2d 25 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Fahrney, 782 P.2d 743 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Gregory, 788 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Bergmann, 790 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Hensley-Martin, 795 P.2d 262 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Stayton, 798 P.2d 903 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Grossenbach, 803 P.2d 961 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Creasey, 811 P.2d 40 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Rhodes, 814 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Williams, 824 P.2d 813 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Watson, 833 P.2d 50 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Farrant, 883 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1994);
People v. Singer, 897 P.2d 798 (Colo. 1995);
People v. Williams, 915 P.2d 669 (Colo. 1996).
C.Disbarment.
Attorney disbarred for continued pattern of conduct involving neglect
and misrepresentation and for failure to cooperate in investigation by
grievance committee.
People v. Young, 673 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1984);
People v. Johnston, 759 P.2d 10 (Colo. 1988).
Failure to file bankruptcy petition for eight months justifies
disbarment.
When a lawyer, after being paid for his services, neglects to file a bankruptcy
petition for his client for a period of approximately eight months, during
which time the client is sued and his wages attached on several occasions,
the lawyer's gross neglect and failure to carry out a contract of employment
justify disbarment. People v. McMichael, 199 Colo. 433, 609 P.2d 633 (1980).
Failure to timely file estate tax returns on behalf of personal
representative of estate, failure to be adequately prepared for argument at
scheduled hearing, failure to file timely notice of alibi, and failure to notify
opposing counsel constitutes continuing pattern of neglect causing risk of
serious injury to clients and justifies disbarment.
People v. Stewart, 752 P.2d 528 (Colo. 1987).
Failing to commence any action on behalf of a client,
exploiting a client's friendship and trust to extort funds for one's
personal use, and failing to cooperate with the grievance committee in its
investigation of
complaints with respect to such matters is conduct warranting disbarment.
People v. McMahill, 782 P.2d 336 (Colo. 1989).
Where an attorney demonstrates an extreme indifference to the welfare of
his clients and the status of their cases and an extreme insensitivity to
his professional duties in the face of adverse judgments due to neglect,
client complaints, and repeated disciplinary proceedings, disbarment
is the appropriate sanction. People v. Wyman, 782 P.2d 339 (Colo. 1989).
Conduct which causes a client serious or potentially serious injury
and demonstrates a complete lack of concern for a client's interests and
welfare warrants disbarment. People v. Lyons, 762 P.2d 143 (Colo. 1988).
Continuing to practice law while suspended is conduct justifying
disbarment. People v. James, 731 P.2d 698 (Colo. 1987).
Facts sufficient to justify disbarment of attorney for failure to comply
with registration requirements of C.R.C.P. 227, misappropriation of
funds, and improper withdrawal from employment. People v. Scudder,
197 Colo. 99, 590 P.2d 493 (1979).
Total disregard of obligation to protect a client's rights and
interests over an extended period of time in conjunction with the
violation
of a number of disciplinary rules and an extended prior record of
discipline requires most severe sanction of disbarment. People v. O'Leary,
783 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1989).
Attorney's continued practice of law while under an order of suspension,
with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and the failure to take action
to protect the legal interests of the attorney's clients, warrants
disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992).
Disbarment was the proper remedy where the attorney was afforded
multiple opportunities including two suspensions and court ordered
rehabilitation and where attorney's conduct demonstrated (a) neglect of
legal
matters entrusted to him; (b) misrepresentation to the client and the
grievance committee; and (c) a pattern of neglect followed
by the respondent that had the potential of causing serious injury to his
clients.
People v. Susman, 787 P.2d 1119 (Colo. 1990).
Disbarment proper remedy for lawyer who, shortly after admission to bar
and continuing for two years, embarked on a course of conduct resulting in
ten separate instances of professional misconduct, some of which presented
the potential for serious harm to clients and to the administration of
justice. People v. Murray, 887 P.2d 1016 (Colo. 1994).
A lawyer's continued practice of law while under an order of
suspension, with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and failure to
take action to protect the legal interests of the lawyer's clients, warrants
disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992).
Pattern of misconduct involving failure to render services, multiple
offenses, and conversion of clients' property sufficient to warrant
disbarrment. People v. Vermillion, 814 P.2d 795 (Colo. 1991).
Disbarment appropriate where attorney converted client funds, neglected
a legal matter entrusted to him, and had a history of discipline. People v.
Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991).
Disbarment appropriate when attorney neglected numerous legal matters and
engaged in other conduct prejudicial to client and the administration of
justice. People v. Theodore, 926 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1996).
Failure to respond to discovery and motions, failure to attend case
management hearing, and failure to inform client of progress of a civil case
is grounds for disbarment. People v. Hebenstreit, 823 P.2d 125 (Colo.
1992).
Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary
rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Ashley, 817 P.2d 965
(Colo. 1991); People v. Rouse, 817 P.2d 967 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Margolin, 820 P.2d 347 (Colo. 1991);
People v. Koransky, 824 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Bradley, 825 P.2d 475 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Southern, 832 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1992);
People v. McGrath, 833 P.2d 731 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Singer, 955 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1998).
Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify disbarment.
People v. Kendrick, 646 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Dwyer, 652 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Craig, 653 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Golden, 654 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1982);
People v. Coca, 716 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Quick, 716 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1986);
People v. Quintana, 752 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Lovett, 753 P.2d 205 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Brooks, 753 P.2d 208 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Turner, 758 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Danker, 759 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Score, 760 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1988);
People v. Kengle, 772 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Murphy, 778 P.2d 658 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Frank, 782 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Johnston, 782 P.2d 1195 (Colo. 1989);
People v. Dulaney, 785 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Franks, 791 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Gregory, 797 P.2d 42 (Colo. 1990);
People v. Mullison, 829 P.2d 382 (Colo. 1992);
People v. Hyland, 830 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1992).
|
