Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 322 views

    Ronald L. Roberts

    Uploaded by

    Circuit Media

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Ronald L. Roberts

    Uploaded by

    Circuit Media
    322 views20 pages

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    322 views20 pages

    Ronald L. Roberts

    Uploaded by

    Circuit Media

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 20
    O Oo ‘SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED | ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE | BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE | OCT 15 2609 | Better Calorsdo 80202 © SEMTNUERS Complainant: ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO A COURTUSE ONLY & Respondent RONALD LAWRENCE ROBERTS Case Number: 09PDJO32 ‘April M. MeMurrey, #34194 Assistant Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, Cotoratio 80202 ‘Telephone: (303) 866-6400 ext. 6432 Fax No.: (303) 893-5302 Attorney for Complainant Michael D. Gross, #7301 Michael D. Gross, P.C. } 1771 South 8 Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 ‘Telephone: (719) 635-5578 (719) 878-5192 Attorney for Respondent ‘STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND AVFIDAVIT CONTAINING THE RESPONDENT'S CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT on this 1S" day of october, 2009, April M. McMurrey, Acsistant Regulation Coansel and atorney for the complainant, and Ronald Lawrence Robert, the respondent who ie represented by attomey Michael D. Grose in theue proceedings, enter into the folowing stipulation, agreement, and affidavit ontairing the respondent's conditional amistion of misconduct stipulation”) tnd submit the same tothe Presiding Disciplinary Judge fr his consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Suspension for One-Year and One-Day 1. ‘The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this Court on May 1, 1992, and is registered as an 19/13/2008 16:61 363893502 SUPREME COURT Pace oa/18 oa oO attorney upon the official records of this Court, registration no. 21459. The respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings. 2. ‘The respondent enters into this stipulation freely and voluntarily. No promises have been made concerning future consideration, punishment, or lenience in the above-referenced matter. It is the respondent's personal decision, and the respondent affirms there has been no coercion or other intimidating acts by any person or agency concerning this matter. 3. This matter has become public under the operation of C.R.C.P. 251.31(¢} as amended. 4. The respondent has read and studied the complaint denominated a8 People v. Ronald Lawrence Roberts, case no. 09PDJ032 and is familiar with the allegations therein. A true and correct copy of the complaint is attached to this stipulation as Exhibit 1. 5. _ On duly 22, 2008, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") entered an order of default against the respondent pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b). In that order of default, the PDJ found that the complaint met the requirements of CR.CP. 251.14(a) (disciplinary complaints must be well pleaded). The PDJ thus ordered that the facts and rule violations contained in the complaint had ‘been established. 6. The respondent is familiar with the rules of the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the procedure for discipline of attorneys and with the rights provided by those rules. The respondent acknowledges an order of default has been entered in this matter; that this matter is scheduled for a sanctions hearing on October 14, 2009, and at such hearing, the partics have an opportunity to present evidence regarding the issue of harm, and aggravating and mitigating factors, Nonetheless, having full knowledge of the right to the sanctions hearing, the respondent waives that right. 7. The respondent affirms under oath the facts and conclusions set forth in Exhibit 1 are true and correct, and that through his conduct described in Exhibit J, the respondent has engaged in conduct constituting grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.RC.P. 251.5, and that the respondent has violated Colo, RPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a) and 3.4(c). 8. Pursuant to C.R.C.P, 251.82, the respondent agrees to pay costs in the amount of $91.00 (a copy of the statement of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit 2) incurred in conjunction with this matter within thirty (30) days after re/1s/20e9 16:a1 3838995092 SUPREME COURT Pace oas18 acceptance of the stipulation by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, made payable to Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. The respondent agrees that statutory interest shall accrue from the date that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepts this stipulation. Should the respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within (30) days, the respondent specifically agrees to be responsible for all additional costs and expenses, such as reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection incurred by the complainant in collecting the above stated amount. The complainant may amend the amount of the judgment for the additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, which identifies this paragraph of the stipulation and the respondent's default on the payment. 9. This stipulation is premised and conditioned upon acceptance of the same by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. If for any reason the stipulation is not accepted without changes or modification, then the admissions, confessions, and stipulations made by the respondent will be of no effect. Either party will have the opportunity to accept or reject any modification. If either party rejects the modification, then the parties shall be entitled to proceed with @ sanctions hearing; and no confession, stipulation, or other statement made by the respondent in conjunction with this offer to accept discipline of a suspension for one-year and one-day may be subsequently used. Hf the stipulation is rejected, then the matter will be heard and considered at a sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15. 10. ‘The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has notified or will notify shortly after the parties sign this agreement, the complaining witnesses in the matters of the proposed disposition. 11. Respondent's counsel, Michael D. Gross, hereby authorizes the respondent, Ronald Lawrence Roberts, and the non-lawyer individual in the Office of Attomey Regulation Counsel who is responsible for monitoring the conditions set forth herein to communicate directly concerning scheduling and administrative issues or questions. Respondent's counsel will be contacted concerning any substantive issue that may arise. PRIOR DISCIPLINE 12. None. ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINE 19. Pursuant to American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanetions 1991 and Supp. 1992 (‘ABA Standards), §3.0, the Court should 19/13/2009 as:e1 —_3e3699502 oO PAE 05/16 consider the following factors generally: ‘9) Duties Violated ‘The respondent violated his professional duties to his clients, the judicial system and the public by failing to cominunicate with his clients, failing to act with reasonable diligence in client matters, failing to withdraw from client ‘matters, and failing to comply with court orders. 'b) The Respondent's Mental State ‘The respondent knowingly failed to act with reasonable diligence in numerous client matters, knowingly failed to communicate with his clients, knowingly failed to withdraw from client matters, and knowingly violated court orders. ¢) Injury Caused by the Respondent's Misconduct ‘The respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence led to a significant default judgment against client Mark Polunci, and the dismissal of another of Polunci’s law suits. With client Lance Judson, the respondent's failure to act with diligence led to Judson having to hire new counsel to proceed with his cases. The respondent's conduct caused his clients emotional harm by causing them distress and concern when he failed to appear on their behalf. The respondent's conduct harmed the judicial system by delaying the court matters, and in one ease, causing the judge to expend additional judicial resources for a contempt proceeding against the respondent. 4) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors ‘The following aggravating factors are established under ABA Standard 9.2 2) A Pattern of Misconduct {e): In five court cases the respondent cengaged in misconduct. He failed to act with reasonable diligence in client matters, failed to communicate with his clients, and, even after determining he could not continue the representation, failed to withdraw from the cases. In two matters, he knowingly violated court orders. Through these multiple instances of misconduct, the respondent has engaged in a pattern of misconduct. ») Multiple Offenses (4): The respondent's misconduct establishes violations of Colo. RPC 13, 1.4, 116(a), and 3.4(c). Such ‘misconduct establishes multiple offenses. 20/13/2e03 16:01 3038595302 ‘SUPREME COURT Pace 06/18 ©) Substantial _Expertence in the Practice of Law_{i): The respondent was admitted into the Colorado bar in 1992. Thus, he has had ample experience in the practice of law. ‘The following mitigating factors are established under ABA Standard 9.32: a) Absence of Prior Discipline (a): The respondent has no prior discipline. >) Persomal_or Emotional Problems (cl: The respondent was experiencing health-related problems, including cardiac issues and a blood clot in his leg during the time of the misconduct. In addition, the respondent had recently been divorced. ‘These circumstances caused him to have personal problems and emotional problems. 14. Pursuant to ABA Standard §4.42, 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 (bj a lawyer engages in a pattern of negiect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard §6.22 provides that suspension is appropriate when a lawyer Imowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding, 15. Colorado Supreme Court case law is in accord with the ABA Standards, When a lawyer engages in multiple instances of neglect and causes harm to clients, the court has imposed a lengthy period of suspension. See People v. Rishel, 986 P.2d 542 (Colo. 1998)(lawyer's neglect of two client matters resulted in suspension for one year and one day); see also People v. Hindorff, 860 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1999)(lawyer’s neglect of client matters, and failure to communicate with clients and opposing counsel, in addition to entering into settlement without client authority, warranted suspension of one year and one day) 16. Considering all of the factors described above, as applied to this case, suspension for a period of one-year and one-day is an appropriate sanction, 19/13/2003 16:01 9936935302 Pace 07/18 TION FOR 70 ‘Based on the foregoing, the parties hereto recommend that a suspension for a period of one-year and one-day be imposed upon the respondent. The respondent consents to the imposition of discipline of a suspension for a period of one-year and one-day. ‘The parties request that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge order that the effective date of such discipline be immediate, as the respondent has been administratively suspended since March 25, 2009, and there is no need for a delay. Ronald Lawrence Roberts, the respondent; Michacl D, Gross, attorney for the respondent; and April M. McMurrey, attorney for the complainant, acknowledge by signing this document that they have read and reviewed the above and request the Presiding Disciplinary Judge to accept the stipulation as set forth above. mnald Lawente Roberts 76 Vale Circle Palmer Lake, Colorado 80133 STATE OF COLORADO ) ite county or £/ Asso} azepscribed and sworn to before me this_/Y “ny of October, 2009, by Abst sgsence Roberts, respondent. he 5 ag 43s my hand and official seal. mmission expires: (34//7_/3O// 0/13/2003 16:1 seaesa6302 sal tl Oaarof Assistant Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 cb. Grose, # hael D. Gross, P.C. (771 Sout 8% Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 Telephone: (719) 635-5578 Fax No:: (719) 578-5192 ‘Attorney for Respondent SUPREME COURT Pace e8/i8 aw/ia/2e09 16:81 sagesass: PACE e/1e ‘SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE FILED 1560 Broadway, Suite 675 Denver, Colorado 80202, APR 1.4 2008 Complainant: ‘es ore ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ACOURT USE ONTYA Respondent: RONALD LAWRENCE ROBERTS Case Number: ‘Apr M, Mekturrey #2494 9 Assistant Regulation Counsel OS PDI 032 ‘John 8, Gleason, #15011 Regulation Counsel ‘Atlomeys for Complainant 1660 Broadway. Sulte 1800 Denver, Colorado 80302 Telephone: (803) 866-6400, ext. 6432 Fax No.: (803) 893-5902 COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT ts fled pursuant to the authority of RCP. 251.9 through 251.14, and itis alleged as follows: surisdiction 1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this Court on May 1. 1902, and is registered upon the offcial records of this Court, registration no. 21459. He is subject to the Jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings. ‘The respondent's registered business address Is 1864 Woodmoor Drive, Suite 205, Monument, Colorado 80132.' ‘The respondent was administratively suspended from the practice of law on March 25, 2009, pursuant to C.R.C.P, 251.8,6 for his failure ‘to cooperate in the investigation of these matters. "Nn eto ie roan reed (cet ae ii egies, piss cent nl Se Ln eee ae vied sont kena ewe Olen t58 Monnet Clore 8013, where ompintaa sna aa poder. aon, onset sel a te repende seperate se Toner a i ie/is/2ees ie:e1 — 3aaes962e2 SLPRENE couRT Paee erie 5 2. Mark Potunel (Polunct’) and Lanse Judson (“Judson”) were business partners. 8. Polunci’s businesses were Garrett & Associates (‘G&A") and Cross Mountain Group, Ltd. (CMG"). 4, Judson’s business was Rocky Mountain Management (‘RMM"). 5, Poluncl, through his companies referenced above, was involved in real estate investment deals. 6. Judson, through his company, aselsted Polunci with the real estate investments. 7. For some of the tnvestments, Poluncl would accept money from investors and sign a promissory note to include repayment with interest. Some of the investments also involved placing property into a land trust. The respondent was named as the trustee for some of the land trusts, including being named as the trustee for the land trust to which Poluncl transferred his {famntly home. 8, Adar Black (‘Black’), a family frlend of Polunct’s, began working ‘with Polunel in his real estate investment business. 9. Black’s family also invested money with Potunct. 10, Black became concemed that funds being invested with Polunct ‘were being mismanaged, and were kept by Polune! for his own personal use. 11, Litigation ensued among Black and Polunci and Judson, as well as bby some of the fnvestors against Polunc{ and Judson. 12. The respondent agreed to represent Polunci, Judson and their businesses to defend them in the civil lawsuits brought by Black and the investors. ‘The respondent also agreed to bring suit on behalf of Poluncl and Judson against Black to recover money. 13, In Black v, Polunct et al, case no. O7CV1367 (Douglas County), the respondent represented Polunc! and Polunet’s wife. a, The case was filed on May 31, 2007. ‘, Trial was set for March 19, 2008. 3/2009 16) ua. e1 sesesa5se2 SUPREME OORT PACE o O ©, In February 2008, the respondent emailed Polunct and advised he ‘was withdrawing from all of Polunc!’s matters due to medical issues. Later, the respondent emuailed that he would appear for the ‘Mareh 13, 2008 trial in this matter. The day the trial began, the respondent moved to continue the trial due to illness. The matter ‘was re-set for the next day. d. The following day, the respondent did not appear for trfal. The trial ‘was continued to April 25, 2008, ¢. In the meantime the respondent was ordered by the court to ‘produce documentation that addressed his medical situation. By ‘email dated April 22, 2008, the respondent contacted opposing ‘counsel, Kathleen Carison, and stated he wanted to re-set the trial. Carlson advised she had not received any medical information and it was her intent to proceed. Thereafter, on April 24, 2008, the respondent moved to vacate the trial date. £ On the new trial date, April 25, 2008, the respondent appeared by phone. He faxed medical information to the court stating he had been treated for a blood clot in his leg. ‘The court vacated the trial date and set anew date of June 20, 2008, g, ThereafRer, due to Polunel fling bankruptcy, the trlal was vacated. ‘The respondent did not withdraw from ‘his representation of Polunct in this matter. ‘h. On November §, 2008, the court ordered the respondent to provide fa status report regarding the bankruptcy proceedings within 15, days of the date of the court’s order. The respondent failed to provide the status report. As a result, the court ordered the plaintifis to provide the report, which they did. In Swanson v. Polunci, et al, case no. 07CV3132 (El Paso County), the respondent represented Polunid, G&A, and CMG, The respondent also represented Judson and RMM. a. The case was Bled on June 18, 2007. b. Trial was set for June 28, 2008. “The respondent did not advise Polunci or Judson of the tral date. 4. By email dated February 10, 2008, the respondent advised Polunct hhe would need to withdraw from all matters: the respondent did not, however, file a motion to withdraw. Polunci was not able to une 10/13/2008 16:61 pret 2s afford to hire new counsel to assist him. Judgment entered against Poluncl on June 23, 2008. Damages in the amount of $84,950 were entered. fe. The respondent was not responsive to Judson's requests for information. Judson sent numerous emails, including one dated March 20, 2008 in which he asked why the respondent had not advised him of the trial date. {. By email dated March 24, 2008, the respondent advised Judson the respondent had significant health problems and would need to stil, the respondent did not file a motion Judson hired new counsel, Robert Hardeastle, Rsq., to represent him. Hardoastle moved the court to vacate the trial date, explaining in. his motion that’ the respondent’ would not communeate with bim (Hardeastle), and that the required Rule 26 disclosures had not been made and a trial management order had hot been prepared, The court denied Hardcastle's motion. Judson deciared bankruptcy. As a result, the ease did not proceed against Sudson. 15. In Polunctv. Adam Black, case no. O7CV8475 (El Paso County), the respondent represented Polunel in bringing sutt against Adam Black. a. The suit was filed on July 17, 2007. b. ‘The respondent did not set it for trial. . Tn May 2008, the case was dismissed for lack of progress. 16, In Judson v, Adam Black, case no. O7CV3497 (EI Paso County), the respondent represented Judson in bringing suit against Adam Black. a. The suit was filed on July 19, 2007. b. The case was set for trial on April 7, 2008. c. In February 2008, Judson hired a new lawyer, David Addison, to represent him when he was unable to get the respondent to communicate with him. 4, The respondent did not file a motion to withdraw from the suit. 10/13/2003 16:01 i. NE COLRT Paes aria > In Money v. Polunct, et al, case no: 07CV4488 (Bl Paso County), the respondent represented Polunel and CMG. b k, ‘The suit was filed on September 5, 2007, ‘The respondent signed a waiver of service on September 21, 2007. ‘The respondent did not fle an answer and on December 3, 2007, the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was granted in the amount of $365,395.35. ‘On December 26, 2007, the respondent maved to set aside the default judgment, which was denied. When Polunct failed to respond to interrogatories pursuant to C.RCP 69, opposing counsel filed a motion for citation for ‘contempt. in March 2008, Polunci hired new counsel, Heather Hanneman, to represent him. ‘Ata subsequent hearing, both the respondent and Hanneman appeared and Hanneman represented Poluncl at the hearing. ‘Hanneman represented Polunci regarding the fling of responses to interrogatories; she then withdrew. Opposing counsel filed a second motion for citation for contempt pursuant to C.R.C.P. 69(d). On Aptit 11, 2008. just prior to the start of @ hearing regarding the contempt citation, the respondent called the clerk and advised he ‘was Polunet’s attorney, that he [the respondent] was in the hospital land would not be able to be in court, Polunel advised the court he hhad recelved an email from the respondent stating he was going to ‘withdraw from the case. ‘The court continued the case to April 28, 2008 for appearance of counsel, stating it was unclear if the respondent was still representing Poluncl. The court set the contempt matter for May 29, 2008. (On May 1, 2008, the court appointed counsel to Polunet for the contempt citation. On May 29, 2008, the respondent did not appear. The respondent was given notice of this hearing via Lexis Nexis File & Serve. 1a/ia/2ee 16:01 ses0s35302 supREe CURT oO ¢ tf m. At a subsequent hearing on June 11, 2008, the respondent di not appear. The respondent was given notice of this hearing via Lexis, Nexis File & Serve. ‘n. On June 25, 2008, the court entered an order to appear and show cause to the respondent for July 28, 2008. The order was served on the respondent via Lexis Nexis File & Serve. ©. On July 28, 2008, the respondent fatled to appear for the show cause hearing. The court found the respondent was in contempt and ordered a bench warrant with the bond set at $750.00. cian 1 Diligence - Colo. RPC 1.3 (2008)| foren, 1 Parsetwphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein ae i fully set 19. Colo. RPC 1. provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a clfent. 20. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and ‘Prompiness in each of the following respects: a. by failing to fle an answer, resulting in default entering against Polunel and CMG in case no. 0704438; b. _by failing to prosecute case no. O7CV8475, on behalf of Polunct, resulting in the case being dismissed; and ©. _by failing to take action on Judsons's behalf and falling to communicate with Judson's new counsel, Hardcastle, in case no. o7cvs1a2. ‘The respondent was required to complete each of the specific taske described above. Each of these failures by the respondent constitutes a separate incident of lack of dllgence and promptness as do all of them together. 21, The respondent new or should have known that his lack of digence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and prompiness. 22, ‘The respondent's lack of diligence and promptneas caused serious or potentially serious injury to the clients, 23, By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.3. PaGe 16/8 + 19/19/2009 16:01 sasesa5002 SLPROE COURT Pace is/ie oO WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof. LAD [Communfeation- Colo. RPC 1.4 (2008)| forun, 2 Partefaphe 1 through 17 are incorporated herein as Uf fuly set 25. Colo, RPC 1.4 provides, in part, that (a) a lawyer shall (9) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and (4) promptly ‘comply with reasonable requests for information. 26. ‘The respondent failed to keep Polunct and Judson reasonably Informed about the status of their legal matters and failed to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information in the following respects: a. by failing to respond to Polunct and Judson’s requests for information regarding their cases; and 1. by failing to inform Potunct and Judson of trial dates in their Each of these failures to communicate adequately with the cllent constitutes a separate violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a) as do all of them together. 27. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to communicate adequately with his clients over an extended period of months. 28. ‘The respondent's pattern and practice of failing to communicate ‘with the clients caused serious or potentially serious injury to the client. 29, By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4. WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof cham mt Meclining or Terminating Representations- Colo, RPC 1.16 (2008) 80. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein as if fully set 31. Colo. RPC 1.16(a) provides that except as stated in paragraph (0). a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if. (1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (2) the te/iz/ne 16:61 seeassse2 Pree 16/8 lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client. 82. The respondent advised his clients that due to medical problems hhe was unable to continue their representation. 33. _ Nevertheless the respondent never moved to withdraw from any of the client matters. 34, By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.16(a). WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof. cama Iv [Faimess to Opposing Party and Counsel - Colo, RPC 3.4 (2008)] 85, Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein as if fully set 36. Colo. RPC 8.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey: an obligation under the rules of a tribunal. 37. ‘The respondent knowingly failed to comply with court orders through the following: a In case no. 07CV4438, on June 25, 2008, the court entered an order to appear and show cause to the respondent for July 28, 2008. ‘The respondent was given notice of this hearing via Lexis Nexis File & Serve. The respondent failed to appear for the show cauise hearing, The court found the respondent was. in contempt and ordered a bench warrant with the bond set at $750.00. The respondent knowingly disobeyed the court order by imowingly failing to comply with the court's order to appear and show case in case no. O7CV4438, D. In case no. O7CV1367, on November 5, 2008, the court ordered the respondent to provide a status report regarding the bankruptcy proceedings within 15 days of the date of the court's order. ‘The respondent mowingly disobeyed the court's order by knowingly falling to provide the status report. 38. No exception exists under Colo. RPC 3.4{c} for the respondent's mowing failure to comply with these court orders. 89. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 3.4(¢). 19/13/2003 16:e1 3638935382 SUPREME COURT Pace 17/18 WHEREFORE, the people pray that the respondent be found to have in misconduct under C.RC.P. 251.5 and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct as specified above; the respondent be appropriately disciplined for such misconduct: the respondent be required to refund fees to the clients, and/or the client protection fund pursuant to C.R.C.P. 252.14{b), and/or provide restitution to third parties; the respondent be required to return client flles or other client property; the respondent be required to take any other remedial action appropriate under the circumstances: and the respondent be assessed the costs ofthis proceeding. oe paren this _/ "day of Ape, 2000. Respeetiuly submitted, 2 42) $Me Wx. ‘Apa MeMusrey, #34198 “7 ‘Assistant Regulation Couneet

    You might also like