Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory

TCL > November 2006 Issue > Summaries of Disciplinary Opinions

November 2006       Vol. 35, No. 11       Page  147
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases

Summaries of Disciplinary Opinions

The summaries for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge and Hearing Board are prepared by the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. The summaries of the decisions of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge are provided as a service by the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official language of the Decisions. The Colorado Bar Association cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries.

Full copies of the Decisions generally follow the summaries pages. The summaries and full-text Decisions also are accessible from the CBA website: http://www.cobar.org (click on The Colorado Lawyer tab, then the appropriate issue). Decisions, including Exhibits, Complaints, and Amended Complaints and summaries, also are available at the Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge website: http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm, as well as on LexisNexis® at http://www.lexis.com/research, by clicking on States Legal-U.S./Colorado/Cases/CO Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions from 1999.


Summaries of Decisions Regarding Conditional Admission of Misconduct Issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge’s approval of Conditional Admissions of Misconduct does not result in a written Opinion but only a brief Order, which does not constitute precedent. Conditional Admissions of Misconduct are public record and are available for review at the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, 1560 Broadway, Suite 675, Denver, CO 80202; (303) 866-6658; http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PJD/pdj.htm.

People v. Keller, No. 06PDJ062, 09/13/2006. Attorney Disbarred.

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and disbarred respondent John S. Keller, attorney registration number 19496, from the practice of law. Respondent was immediately suspended and his disbarment was effective October 16, 2006.

On August 4, 2005, respondent entered a guilty plea in federal district court to misprision of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4. His guilty plea arose out of his concealment of a wire fraud scheme committed by Glenn Haydel in his capacity as President of the Metro New Orleans Transit, Inc.

On June 20, 2006, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a Petition for Permanent Resignation in Lieu of Discipline filed by respondent, who acknowledged the seriousness of his misconduct. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5 and violated Colo. RPC 8.4(a), (b), and (c).

People v. Miranda, No. 06PDJ010, 08/23/2006. Attorney Suspended.

Following a hearing where the parents and stepparents of the victim presented oral statements, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended respondent Michael Thomas Miranda, attorney registration number 24702, from the practice of law for a period of two years, with conditions regarding reinstatement. Respondent was immediately suspended and his two-year suspension was effective September 23, 2006.

On September 25, 2005, respondent pled guilty to vehicular homicide (DUI), a class 3 felony, in violation of CRS § 18-3-106(1)(b)(I). On December 2, 2005, a district court judge sentenced him to eight years in the Department of Corrections, plus five years mandatory parole. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

People v. Robinson, No. 05PDJ068, 09/18/2006. Attorney Suspended.

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended respondent Brooks Thomas Robinson, attorney registration number 35001, from the practice of law for a period of three years. Suspension was effective October 19, 2006.

In 2002, before becoming an attorney, respondent participated in a conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance commonly known as "ecstasy." Respondent submitted his Colorado Bar application in May 2003 and failed to disclose that law enforcement agents had questioned him about his own involvement in the conspiracy and that he knew it was possible he could be indicted in the future.

On February 4, 2005, respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). On July 21, 2005, the federal district court sentenced him to one year plus one day in federal prison, with supervised probation for an additional year. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 8.1(b).

People v. Winslow, No. 06PDJ066, 09/08/2006. Attorney Suspended.

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended respondent Jeffrey Philip Winslow, attorney registration number 15308, from the practice of law for a period of ninety days; sixty days are stayed upon the successful completion of a two-year period of probation, with conditions. Suspension was effective October 9, 2006.

On May 21, 2004, respondent was suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 260.6(10), for non-compliance with continuing legal education requirements. On August 19, 2005, he was suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 227, for failure to pay annual attorney registration fees. Thereafter, respondent actively continued practicing law throughout the period of his administrative suspension, despite receiving the orders of suspension.

His misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 5.5(a) and Colo. RPC 3.4(c). No current or former clients filed a request for investigation or suffered any adverse result as a consequence of respondent’s misconduct, and he fully cooperated with the investigation initiated by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.


 

© 2006 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/disclaimer.cfm?year=2006.


Back