No. 03PDJ073.Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
June 4, 2004.
Page 1137
Attorney Regulation. Following a sanctions hearing at which Respondent did not appear, the Hearing Board suspended Respondent, attorney registration number 15658, from the practice of law for one year and one day, effective July 5, 2004. Respondent was retained to represent a client in the probation of her husband’s estate and also for the estate and related tax matters concerning her deceased sister-in-law. The client learned that Respondent had not filed tax returns for either estate. The client spoke to Respondent, who agreed to file the tax returns, though he did not do so. Thereafter, the client was unable to reach Respondent. Respondent’s conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (lawyer shall act with diligence and promptness and avoid neglected an entrusted matter); Colo. RPC 1.4(a) (lawyer shall keep client informed and comply with requests for information); and, Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (on termination lawyer shall take steps to protect client’s interests and surrender papers.) Respondent also did not respond to requests from the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel during its investigation of this matter three years after the client hired him. This conduct violates Colo. RPC 8.1(b) and C.R.C.P. 251.5(d).
Opinion by the Hearing Board, consisting of Presiding Disciplinary Judge WILLIAM R. LUCERO and Hearing Board Members, LISA HOGAN and MICKEY W. SMITH, both members of the Bar.
REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
[1] SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FOR ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY
I. BACKGROUND
[2] On September 25, 2003, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (the “People” or “Complainant”) filed a Complaint in this matter. The Citation and Complaint were sent to Respondent Brian Mark Smith (“Smith” or “Respondent”) via certified and regular mail at his last known business and home addresses. On October 9, 2003, the People filed a Proof of Service of the Citation showing that Smith received the Citation and Complaint on September 26, 2003. Smith did not file an answer to the complaint or otherwise respond.
Page 1138
[7] In June 2002, Mrs. Waggoner received notice from the Internal Revenue Service of a tax delinquency for the estate of Pearl Morris estate and that a return had not been filed for the Jess Waggoner estate for the period ending on 12/31/00. Mrs. Waggoner turned these tax matters over to the Respondent for resolution. The Respondent agreed to handle both. However, when Hope Waggoner did not hear back from the Respondent on the progress of these matters, she placed several calls to him seeking information. Respondent returned none of these calls. [8] More than three years after Mrs. Waggoner hired Respondent, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“OARC”) made several attempts to get information from Respondent about the status of the Jess Waggoner and Pearl Morris estates. When the Respondent did not respond to these requests, OARC initiated an investigation pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 251.9 and gave respondent twenty days to respond. He did not do so within that time period, March 14, 2003. The People filed a complaint in this matter in September 2003. [9] The Hearing Board considered the People’s argument, the facts established by the entry of default, and Exhibits 1 and 2 offered by the People and admitted into evidence, including the testimony of R. Sterling Ambler, an attorney, testified on behalf of the People. After considering the evidence and the People’s arguments, the Hearing Board made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. II. FINDINGS OF FACT
[10] Smith has taken and subscribed to the oath of admission, was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court on May 21, 1986, and is registered upon the official records of this Court, registration number 15658. Accordingly, Smith is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[13] The facts established by the entry of default prove the following misconduct:
Colo. RPC 1.3
[14] A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer
Colo. R.P.C. 1.4(a)
[16] A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Page 1139
Respondent failed to keep Mrs. Waggoner reasonably informed about the status of the case and he failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information from her. Respondent did not return his client’s telephone calls nor did he respond to written requests for information. He also failed on numerous occasions between January to June 2003 to respond to verbal and requests from OARC for information about the Waggoner and Morris estates. This conduct was in violation of Colo. R.P.C. 1.4(a).
Colo. R.P.C. 1.16(d)
[18] Upon termination, a lawyer shall take steps to protect a client’s interests and surrender papers and property to the client.
Colo. R.P.C. 8.1(b)
[20] A lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter shall not knowingly fail to respond reasonably to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, except if the information is protected by Colo. R.P.C. 1.6 or there is a good faith challenge to the demand
C.R.C.P. 251.5(d)
[21] An attorney shall respond to a request by the regulation counsel for information necessary to carry out the performance of regulation counsel’s duty.
IV. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
[25] Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 and Supp. 1992), neglect arising to the level of abandonment warrants a sanction ranging from suspension to disbarment, depending on the facts of the case. See ABA Standard § 4.42(a) (providing that “[s]uspension is generally appropriate when (a) a lawyer knowing fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to the client”); AB Standard § 4.41(a) (providing that “[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potential serious injury to a client”). Colorado case law is consistent with this range of sanction. In this case, the Hearing Board finds that suspension rather than disbarment is appropriate.
Page 1140
neglect of client matters and failure to communicate with his clients. I People v. Odom, 914 P.2d 342 (Colo. 1996), the attorney was suspended for three years for failing to keep one client informed regarding an offer by the estranged spouse to increase child support and failing to keep the client informed regarding Social Security benefits, misconduct which resulted in harm to the client. In a separate case, the attorney failed to perform requested services in a criminal matter, failed to refund a retainer, and abandoned the client. The attorney was suspended for three years. In In re McKee, 980 P.2d 506 (Colo. 1999), a reciprocal attorney discipline proceeding, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the two year suspension imposed by another court for the attorney’s failure to communicate with five clients. In this case, Smith’s misconduct resulted in additional interest and penalties accruing to the Internal Revenue Service on the Pearl Morris estate. His failing to turn over papers of the client necessitated the filing of an action against him costing the client an additional $2,000 in attorney’s fees.
[27] Pursuant to ABA Standards § 9.22 and § 9.32, aggravating and mitigating factors are considered in arriving at the appropriate sanction. Because Smith did not participate in these proceedings, there was no evidence of mitigation. The People informed the Hearing Board, however, that Smith has had no prior disciplinary history, which is considered a mitigating factor pursuant to ABA Standards § 9.32(a). In aggravation, Smith engaged in a pattern of misconduct, See ABA Standard§ 9.22(c), and had substantial experience in the practice of law, See AB Standard § 9.22(i). [28] Given the mitigating and aggravating factors presented, a one year and one day suspension is warranted in this default proceeding; additionally, restitution to Hope Waggoner for the attorney’s fees she incurred in the sum of $2,000 is appropriate.
IV. ORDER
[29] It is therefore ORDERED:
EXHIBIT 1
[34] Fredrick J. Kraus, # 30507, Assistant Regulation Counsel, John S. Gleason, # 15011, Regulation Counsel, Attorneys for Complainant. 600 17th Street, Suite 200-South Denver, Colorado, 80202.
COMPLAINT
[37] THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P. 251.9 through 251.14, and it is alleged as follows:
Jurisdiction
[38] The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this court on May 21, 1986, and is registered upon the official records of this court, registration no. 15658. He is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in these disciplinary proceedings. The respondent’s registered business address is 1628 Pine Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Another known address for the respondent is P.O. Box 1129, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
General Allegations
[39] 2. The respondent was retained by Hope Waggoner to handle the estate of her late
Page 1141
husband, Jess W. Waggoner. An attorney-client relationship was thus formed.
[40] 3. Jess W. Waggoner died in June of 1999. [41] 4. Jess W. Waggoner had previously retained respondent to assist in the administration of the estate of Pearl Morris. An attorney-client relationship thus already existed between respondent and Jess W. Waggoner. [42] 5. Jess W. Waggoner was the brother of Pearl Morris, and had been the personal representative of the estate of Pearl Morris. [43] 6. Respondent offered Mr. Jess W. Waggoner’s will for probate in Jefferson County, Colorado, in case number 99-PR-0685. [44] 7. Hope W. Waggoner was appointed as the personal representative of the estate of Jess W. Waggoner shortly after Mr. Waggoner’s will was offered for probate. [45] 8. The respondent hired an accountant to file an estate tax return for the estate of Jess W. Waggoner. The return was filed in 2000. [46] 9. In June 2002, Hope Waggoner received notice from the Internal Revenue Service that a tax return for the Waggoners had not been filed for the tax period 12-31-00. She also received a tax notice of delinquency on the Estate of Pearl Morris. Upon receipt, Ms. Waggoner turned these notices over to respondent and requested he take care of the matters. The respondent agreed to handle these matters. [47] 10. After turning the tax matters over to respondent, Ms. Waggoner did not hear from respondent as to the status of either estate and began making repeated telephone calls to the respondent seeking information. [48] 11. The respondent was aware of Ms. Waggoner’s attempts to contact him, but failed to respond to these calls. [49] 12. On September 5, 2002, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) contacted respondent and requested information as to the status of the two estates. [50] 13. On September 5, 2002, Respondent told OARC that the Waggoner estate was still open and that he was negotiating with the Internal Revenue Service about the tax delinquency notice on the estate of Pearl Morris. Respondent promised a detailed report to Hope Waggoner and OARC on both estates by September 27, 2002. [51] 14. On October 22, 2002 the OARC again contacted respondent by telephone in regard to obtaining the reports on the estates. Respondent did not reply. [52] 15. On January 14, 2003, OARC contacted respondent in writing inquiring about the status of the estates. Respondent did not reply. [53] 16. Thereafter, on January 29, 2003, OARC notified respondent in writing that it was starting a formal Request for Investigation pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 251.9 and gave respondent twenty days to respond. The letter was sent by certified mail return receipt requested. Respondent received the letter on January 30, 2003. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “A,” and specifically incorporated by reference is a copy of the letter and return receipt. [54] 17. Respondent did not respond to the letter of January 29, 2003. [55] 18. On February 26, 2003, OARC wrote respondent to inform him the answer to the Request for Investigation was overdue. Respondent did not respond to the letter. [56] 19. On March 10, 2003, respondent called OARC and told them an answer would be filed on March 14, 2003. [57] 20. Respondent did not file an answer on March 14, 2003. [58] 21. On April 3, 2003, OARC wrote respondent to inform him he had not filed a response, and to inform him that failure to respond to the Request for Investigation was a separate ground for discipline. [59] 22. Respondent did not respond to the letter of April 3, 2003.Page 1142
[60] 23. On June 20, 2003, OARC was able to speak with respondent about filing the report to the Request for Investigation. Respondent promised an answer by June 27, 2003. Respondent stated that he had been ill and could not respond previously. [61] 24. Respondent did not file any response on June 27, 2003. [62] 25. Respondent did not transmit any information on the status of the estates of Jess W. Waggoner or Pearl Morris after months of repeated requests by OARC. [63] 26. On June 9, 2003, Hope Waggoner wrote a letter to respondent informing him that he had been terminated as the attorney for the Estate of Jess W. Waggoner and the Estate of Pearl Morris. [64] 27. Simultaneously on June 9, 2003, Hope Waggoner requested by separate letter to respondent that all files on both estates be turned over to her new attorney, Sterling Ambler. [65] 28. On July 28, 2003, Mr. Ambler made a second written request to the respondent on behalf of Hope Waggoner asking for the files of the estate of Jess Waggoner and Pearl Morris. [66] 29. Respondent did not respond to any requests for information requested by Hope Waggoner or her new attorney and did not turn over his files on the estates of Pearl Morris and Jess W. Waggoner to Hope Waggoner’s new attorney. CLAIM I
[67] [A Lawyer Shall Act With Reasonable Diligence and Promptness in Representing a Client and Shall Not Neglect a Legal Matter Entrusted to that Lawyer — Colo. RPC 1.3]
[68] 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
[71] Each of these failures by the respondent constitutes a separate incident of lack of diligence and promptness, and neglect, as do all of them together. [72] 33. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of diligence and promptness, and neglect continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness, and neglect. [73] 34. The respondent’s lack of diligence and promptness, and neglect caused injury or potential injury to the client. [74] 35. The respondent’s pattern and practice of failing to accomplish his professional tasks for the client constitutes abandonment of the professional responsibilities owed to that client. [75] 36. The foregoing conduct of the respondent establishes grounds for discipline as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.5, and also violates Colo. RPC 1.3. [76] WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.a. by failing to prosecute both cases entrusted to him to conclusion;
b. by failing to complete the probate of the estate of Jess W. Waggoner;
c. by failing to complete negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service in regard to an alleged delinquency of the estate of Pearl Morris;
d. by failing to communicate with the Internal Revenue Service concerning a tax return due by the estate of Jess W. Waggoner;
e. by failing to communicate with his client or the his client’s new counsel.
Page 1143
CLAIM II
[77] [A Lawyer Shall Keep A Client Reasonably Informed About the Status of a Matter, Promptly Comply With Reasonable Requests for Information-Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]
[78] 37. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
[81] Each of these failures to communicate adequately with the client constitutes a separate violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a) as do all of them together. [82] 40. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months. [83] 41. The respondent’s pattern and practice of failing to communicate with the client caused injury or potential injury to the client. [84] 42. The respondent’s failure to communicate on these matters constitutes abandonment of the professional responsibilities owed to the client. [85] 43. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a). [86] WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.a. by failing to respond to his client’s repeated telephone calls and written requests for information;
b. by failing to respond to the verbal requests for information by the OARC about the status of Jess W. Waggoner and Pearl Morris estates;
c. by failing to respond to written requests by the OARC made on January 14 and 19, 2003, February 26, 2003, March 10, 2003, April 3, 2003, and June 20, 2003 and by failing to maintain minimum communications with the client from June 2002 to the date the client was forced to retain new counsel in June of 2003;
d. by failing to respond to the client’s new counsel’s reasonable requests for information and the files.
CLAIM III
[87] [Upon Termination, a Lawyer Shall Take Steps to Protect a Client’s Interest and Surrender Papers and Property to the Client — Colo. RPC 1.16(d)]
[88] 44. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
Page 1144
CLAIM IV
[95] [An Attorney Shall Respond To A Request By The Regulation Counsel For Information Necessary To Carry Out The Performance Of Regulation Counsel’s Duty — C.R.C.P. 251.5(d); A Lawyer Shall Not Knowingly Fail to Respond Reasonably To A Lawful Demand for Information From A Disciplinary Authority — Colo. RPC 8.1(b)]
[96] 51. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
Page 445