Search



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

TCL > July 2008 Issue > Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

July 2008       Vol. 37, No. 7       Page  151
From the Courts
Matters Resulting in Diversion

Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

Articles describing Diversion Agreements and private admonitions as part of the Attorney Regulation System are published on a quarterly basis. These summaries are contributed by the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation.


Diversion and Private Admonition Summaries

Diversion is an alternative to discipline.1 Pursuant to the rule and depending on the stage of the proceeding, Attorney Regulation Counsel (Regulation Counsel), the Attorney Regulation Committee (ARC), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ), the hearing board, or the Supreme Court may offer diversion as an alternative to discipline. For example, Regulation Counsel can offer a Diversion Agreement when the complaint is at the central intake level in the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC). Thereafter, ARC or some other entity must approve the agreement.

From February 25, 2008 through May 15, 2008, at the intake stage:

  • Regulation Counsel entered into twelve Diversion Agreements involving thirteen requests for investigation.
  • ARC entered into five Diversion Agreements involving six requests for investigation.
  • The PDJ approved two Diversion Agreements involving requests for investigation.
  • ARC issued one private admonition involving two requests for investigation.
  • The PDJ did not approve any admonitions.

Determining if Diversion is Appropriate

Regulation Counsel reviews the following factors to determine if diversion is appropriate:

1) there is little likelihood that the attorney will harm the public during the period of participation;
2) Regulation Counsel can adequately supervise the conditions of diversion; and
3) the attorney is likely to benefit by participation in the program.

Regulation Counsel will consider diversion only if the presumptive range of discipline in the particular matter is likely to result in a public censure or less. However, if the attorney has been publicly disciplined in the last three years, the matter generally will not be diverted under the rule.2 Other factors Regulation Counsel considers may preclude Regulation Counsel from agreeing to diversion.3

Purpose of the Diversion Agreement

The purpose of a Diversion Agreement is to educate and rehabilitate the attorney so that the attorney does not engage in such misconduct in the future. Furthermore, the Diversion Agreement also may address some of the systemic problems an attorney may be having. For example, if an attorney engaged in minor misconduct (neglect), and the reason for such conduct was poor office management, then one of the conditions of diversion may be a law office management audit and/or practice monitor. The time period for a Diversion Agreement generally is no less than one year and no greater than three years.

Conditions of the Diversion Agreement

The type of misconduct dictates the conditions of the Diversion Agreement. Although each Diversion Agreement is factually unique and different from other agreements, many times the requirements are similar. Generally, the attorney is required to attend Ethics School and/or Trust Account School that are conducted by attorneys from the OARC. An attorney may also be required to fulfill any of the following conditions:

  • law office audit
  • practice monitor
  • financial audit
  • restitution
  • payment of costs
  • mental health evaluation and treatment
  • continuing legal education (CLE) courses
  • any other conditions that would be determined appropriate for the particular type of misconduct.

Note: The terms of a Diversion Agreement may not be detailed in this summary if the terms are generally included within Diversion Agreements.

After the attorney successfully completes the requirements of the Diversion Agreement, Regulation Counsel will close its file, and the matter will be expunged pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.33(d). If Regulation Counsel has reason to believe that the attorney has breached the Diversion Agreement, then Regulation Counsel must follow the steps provided in C.R.C.P 251.13 before an agreement can be revoked.

Types of Misconduct

The types of misconduct resulting in diversion during February 25, 2008 through May 15, 2008, generally involve the following:

  • an attorney’s neglect of a matter and/or failure to communicate, implicating Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.4, where the client is not harmed or restitution is paid to redress the harm or malpractice insurance exits
  • scope of representation issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.2
  • confidentiality issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.6
  • trust account issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.15
  • bringing a meritorious claim and contention, implicating Colo. RPC 3.1
  • complying with court rules, implicating Colo. RPC 3.4(c)
  • committing a criminal act, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(b)
  • conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(d).

Some cases resulted from personal problems the attorney was experiencing at the time of the misconduct. In those situations, the Diversion Agreements may include a requirement for a mental health evaluation and, if necessary, counseling to address the underlying problems of depression, alcoholism, or other mental health issues that may be affecting the attorney’s ability to practice law.

Notes

1. See C.R.C.P. 251.13.

2. See C.R.C.P. 251.13(b).

3. See id.

Random Samples of Diversion Agreements

Below are random samples of Diversion Agreements that Regulation Counsel determined appropriate for specific types of misconduct during February 25, 2008 through May 15, 2008. The sample gives a general description of the misconduct, the Colorado Rule(s) of Professional Conduct implicated, and the corresponding conditions of the Diversion Agreement.

Competence

Respondent was retained to file a civil lawsuit for an accident that occurred outside Colorado. Because respondent was licensed only in Colorado, he needed to hire counsel licensed in the other state. Although respondent communicated with an out-of-state attorney, he never retained the attorney and, consequently, failed to file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.1.

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School.

Diligence and/or Failure to Communicate

> Respondent was appointed as alternate defense counsel in late June to file an opening brief for the complaining witness that was due during the first week in August. No brief was filed, so an order to show cause was issued, requiring a response date in the beginning of September. The day after the order to show cause was issued, respondent filed his entry of appearance, a response to the show cause order, and a request for an extension of time to file the opening brief.The court of appeals discharged the order to show cause and ordered that the opening brief be filed by the beginning of November. No brief was filed.

The first week of December, the court of appeals issued another show cause order, with a response due mid-December. In late December, respondent filed a late response to the court’s show cause order. In late January, new counsel entered the case on behalf of the complaining witness.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.4(a).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the one-year Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School and pay all costs associated with the Diversion Agreement.

Fees/Trust Account Issues

> A client retained respondent for representation in a dissolution of marriage action. In August, client’s husband was not cooperative in the case, particularly in providing financial information. As a result, respondent’s fees became an issue for the client. Respondent and client agreed to seek an order for client’s husband to pay client’s attorney fees and/or a favorable division of the parties’ assets and debts to compensate for husband’s bad conduct during the case.

Respondent developed a major bookkeeping problem in late 2005. By the time of the contested permanent order hearing, the client had not received a billing statement for approximately two and one-half months. Instead, respondent provided client with a pre-bill estimate. Shortly before the permanent orders hearing, respondent prepared an affidavit of attorney fees, which stated that the client’s total fees and costs incurred were $23,738.54.

Based on the fee information respondent provided to the client, the client testified about the amount of her attorney fees and costs. At the conclusion of the permanent orders hearing, the court estimated client’s fees and costs for the case at more than $30,000; found that the husband’s conduct had caused the client to incur increased attorney fees; ruled him in contempt; and awarded the client a larger amount of the assets disclosed by the parties.

The court offered the client the choice of an order against her husband for a set amount of attorney fees—in the amount of $15,150, based on the total fees the client had incurred in the case—or a yet to-be-determined amount of fees and costs associated with husband’s repeated violation of court orders throughout the case. The court noted that the latter amount could be more or less than the $15,150. The client chose the $15,150 definitive amount.

After the hearing, respondent finalized her bills for December and January and sent them to the client. Respondent’s final bills exceeded the pre-bill estimate respondent had given the client before the hearing. The client maintains that she and the court relied on fee information from respondent that was not current. The client also maintains that respondent did not inform the client about the amount incurred for trial preparation or the permanent orders hearing. The client disputes the reasonableness of respondent’s fees.

In August 2005, another client was handed divorce documents by her husband regarding a dissolution of marriage action he had filed in Wyoming. The client’s husband had moved to Wyoming and wanted the divorce filed there, because Wyoming domestic law generally does not provide for spousal maintenance.

In late August 2005, the client retained respondent for filing a divorce in Colorado. Because the hand-delivery by the client’s husband did not constitute proper service, the Wyoming divorce action was dismissed. Respondent filed client’s divorce petition in Colorado and obtained service on the client’s husband.

In October 2006, the district court issued a permanent orders setting order, which stated that the parties had thirty days to complete discovery, retain experts, provide expert reports to the court, and mediate the matter, or the case would be dismissed.

Discovery was not completed by the court’s deadline. When respondent realized she had missed the court’s deadline, in early November 2006, respondent called opposing counsel and the court. The court advised counsel that the case had been closed and dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s October 2006 order. The day after the district court closed the client’s case in Colorado, the client’s husband obtained service on the client for a divorce action he filed in Wyoming.

In November 2006, opposing counsel and respondent filed a joint stipulation and motion, requesting that the client’s Douglas County case be re-opened. In late November 2006, the court denied the motion to re-open the client’s case.

The client paid respondent approximately $9,000 in connection with the Colorado divorce matter. The client maintains she derived no benefit from respondent’s services. The client further maintains she was harmed by respondent’s failure to comply with the court’s setting order, which resulted in her divorce being delayed and jurisdiction being owed to Wyoming where domestic laws do not provide for spousal maintenance. The client requested that respondent refund all or some of the funds the client paid to respondent. Respondent has refused the client’s refund requests.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a) and (f), and 3.2.

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School and Trust Account School; pay all costs associated with the one-year Diversion Agreement; have no disciplinable conduct for one year; and participate in the resolution of fee dispute with the client within thirty days of the date of the agreement.

__________________

> Respondent agreed to represent a client regarding felony counts of securities fraud. The client entered a plea to theft. Sentencing was scheduled for August 2006. Respondent failed to appear for the sentencing due to a calendaring problem that resulted when respondent’s computer crashed. The sentencing was continued, but respondent again failed to appear. The sentencing was continued and the client hired new counsel. In the meantime, the district attorney contacted respondent and advised him of the continued sentencing date. Although respondent appeared, because the client had hired new counsel, respondent verbally moved to withdraw; his motion was granted.

During the representation, respondent deposited the client’s funds into his trust account; however, he withdrew funds before he billed for them. Although respondent earned all of the funds, he did not provide an accounting to client. Respondent provided an accounting to the OARC, which was provided to the client.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15.

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School and Trust Account School, complete a practice audit, pay all costs within thirty days, and have no other violations during a one-year diversion period.

__________________

> The complaining witness retained respondent to assist him with a criminal matter. There was no written fee agreement. However, the complaining witness and respondent verbally agreed that the complaining witness would build a fence for respondent’s yard in return for respondent’s representation.

During the course of the representation, the complaining witness and respondent took several day trips. The complaining witness asserts that these trips were at respondent’s request and were in lieu of legal fees; respondent asserts that they were all pleasure trips.

While working at respondent’s home on the fence, the complaining witness met one of respondent’s other clients. They became romantically involved and married soon thereafter. Prior to the wedding, respondent prepared a prenuptial agreement and had both clients sign it, but later refused to give the complaining witness a copy of it.

Because respondent had represented the bride in her previous divorce in March 2006, she was aware of the disparity between the two parties’ financial circumstances. The new wife threatened to have her son and ex-husband kill the complaining witness. The new wife also called the complaining witness’s probation officer and reported that the complaining witness had sexually assaulted her.

Thereafter, the complaining witness obtained a temporary restraining order against his wife. Respondent accompanied the wife to court proceedings on the restraining order. The complaining witness asserts that respondent was advising the wife throughout the proceedings; respondent asserts that she was present as a friend. At the time she accompanied the wife to court, she was still the attorney of record on the complaining witness’ criminal matters.

There is a factual dispute between the complaining witness and respondent concerning respondent’s fees and the work done by the complaining witness, because additional matters arose during the representation, and the complaining witness did additional manual labor that he believed was in lieu of paying fees.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(b) and 1.7(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School, pay all costs, and provide an accounting of the value of the work complaining witness performed for respondent, as well as itemization of the work provided to complaining witness. If dispute continues, respondent is to submit to binding fee arbitration within thirty days; complaining witness will be made aware of this condition.

Meritorious Claims and Contentions

> Respondent represented the wife in a dissolution of marriage case. In a motion filed in late April 2007, respondent identified the complaining witness by name and alleged that the husband was "purchasing large assets for his girlfriend and bookkeeper. Respondent (husband) has allegedly purchased her a condo and provided her a vehicle. It also is alleged that respondent has been paying her bills. This is all with marital funds." Use of the name of the complaining witness in a divorce is alleged by the People to violate CRS § 13-20-206, which is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and/or county jail time.

During the course of the representation, respondent’s law partner improperly obtained financial records by issuing a subpoena without providing notice to opposing counsel, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Despite being informed by opposing counsel that the firm had failed to follow proper procedure, respondent refused to provide a copy of the wrongfully obtained documents until opposing counsel obtained a court order directing her to do so.

In a second incident in the same case, respondent issued a Subpoena to Produce Documents to an attorney in an effort to obtain evidence concerning a personal injury claim brought by husband. The subpoena was not issued in connection with a deposition or court hearing, and opposing counsel was not copied on the subpoena.

In the dissolution of marriage case, the court entered judgment against respondent and her client jointly and severally in the sum of $6,031.03, under CRS § 13-17-102. The judgment was entered as a sanction against respondent and her client for contesting the enforceability of a marital agreement and for calling opposing counsel as a witness at the hearing, requiring husband to obtain new counsel to represent him at the hearing on the validity of the marital agreement. The trial court found that respondent had accused opposing counsel of fraud, duress, and overreaching, that there was no evidence to support these allegations, and that the claim to void the marital agreement lacked substantial justification and was legally groundless, justifying the award of fees.

Respondent timely delivered a cashier’s check for $6,031.63 to opposing counsel, in satisfaction of the judgment and in compliance with the court’s order. Respondent reserves her right to appeal the judgment.

Respondent has practiced law for five and one-half years. She started her career in Indiana, and has now been in practice for three years in Colorado. Respondent is relatively inexperienced in the practice of law.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.1, 4.4, and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the diversion agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School and pay all costs.

Complying With Court Orders

> At various times for approximately thirteen months, respondent was behind in his court-ordered child support payments. Respondent then paid his ex-wife the amount of child support he was required to pay, but did not always pay timely. By the time the Diversion Agreement was entered into in February 2008, respondent was current on his child support payments.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.4(c).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall make all payments as set forth in the stipulation for modification of child support respondent entered into with ex-wife in October 2007 (and thereafter made an order of the court); submit monthly reports detailing his child support payments; and provide documentary proof to the OARC that such payments were made; attend and pass Ethics School; pay all costs; and have no other violations during the one-year diversion period.

__________________

> In July 2005, respondent was charged with violations of CRS § 42-4-1409, driving a motor vehicle without proof of insurance; and CRS § 42-4-1301, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Respondent failed to appear at two court hearings. In November 2006, respondent pled to driving while ability impaired (DWAI). Respondent was sentenced to twelve months of supervised probation, alcohol treatment, monitored sobriety, victim impact panel, community service, and various fines and costs. Respondent did not report the above-mentioned conviction to the OARC until January 2008.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.4(c) and 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School, pay all costs, have no disciplinable conduct during the one-year Diversion Agreement, and comply with all court sentences and supply written confirmation of compliance to OARC.

__________________

> Respondent issued a subpoena duces tecum to two banks requesting that the banks provide her copies of any and all documentation that they had regarding two individuals, and that such documentation must be provided to her within forty-eight hours of receipt of the subpoena. Respondent stated in the subpoena that failure to provide the requested documentation in a timely manner may result in sanctions being brought against them by the court.

The subpoenas were sent to the banks by facsimile and not served by a process server or sheriff. Copies of the subpoenas were not sent to opposing counsel. One bank complied with the subpoena and provided documents to respondent at no cost. The other bank responded that it would provide the information on payment of copying costs.

Opposing counsel eventually found out about the subpoenas and filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena, Motion for Protective Order, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion to Compel. The judge issued an order granting the motions and quashing the subpoenas duces tecum. Respondent was ordered to turn over the documents she received to opposing counsel. Respondent was not allowed to retain a copy of any documents she received. The court further ordered that any costs due to either bank as the result of the subpoenas duces tecum shall be the sole responsibility of respondent.

Respondent was ordered to pay all attorney fees and costs associated with the pleadings filed on behalf of the opposing party within twenty days of the court’s order quashing the subpoena. Respondent had fifteen days to appeal the motion, but did not do so.

Respondent failed to comply with the court’s order to pay opposing counsel’s fees and costs within twenty days. Consequently, opposing counsel filed a Motion for Contempt Citation, and a hearing was set. The day before the contempt hearing, an agreement was reached to dismiss the contempt citation, because respondent agreed to pay the attorney fees and costs. Two weeks after the agreement was reached, respondent still had not compiled with the court order, but since has paid the fees and costs.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.4(c), 4.1(a), 4.4, and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School.

Truthfulness in Statements to Others

> Respondent represented a plaintiff in an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendants. Plaintiff died. Respondent misled defense counsel concerning the performance of an autopsy. Respondent then delayed in producing the autopsy report. The court entered sanctions against respondent. The matter ultimately settled.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 4.1(a) and 8.4(c) and (d).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School, pay all costs associated with the two-year diversion period, have no further violations, and agree to a practice monitor.

Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

> Respondent works for a law firm that also has a debt collection practice. The debt collection firm sent a standard collection notice to a debtor. The debtor responded with a letter seeking verification of the debt, and requested that the debt collection firm stop any further communication with her about the debt, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c. The debtor specifically requested that the collection firm "not contact her employer, friends, neighbors or relatives regarding this debt.

"When respondent received the letter from the debtor, respondent flagged the debtor’s file, and marked it as "on notice" that the debtor requested no further communication about the debt." Approximately one year later, a nonlawyer debt collector working at the collection firm reviewed the debtor’s file. The nonlawyer collector removed the "on notice" designation from the file, and actively pursued collection of the debt. Over a period of two weeks, the nonlawyer collector made several calls to the debtor and members of her family to establish contact about the debt, and sought to collect the debt from the debtor. A nonlawyer supervisor in the collection firm also tried to establish contact with the debtor to collect the debt.

The debtor, after learning that the debt collection firm contacted her son-in-law and after being contacted directly by the debt collection firm, wrote a letter to the firm reminding them of her earlier "no contact" letter, and again requested verification of the debt and asked the firm to cease any further contact or communication with her about the debt.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 5.3.

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall attend Ethics School, pay all costs associated with the Diversion Agreement, and have no disciplinable conduct for one year.

Criminal Conduct

> Respondent was stopped for driving with no headlights and weaving. Respondent agreed to perform the roadside maneuvers. After unsuccessfully performing the roadside maneuvers, respondent was arrested for DUI. Respondent was convicted of DUI over .20, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .218.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with the conditions imposed in the criminal case, abstain from the use of alcohol, and submit to breath tests twice per week for a period of one year, attend Ethics School, and have no disciplinable conduct for two years.

__________________

In April 2007, respondent was charged with violating CRS § 18-3-204, third-degree assault. Respondent pled to disorderly conduct. Respondent was involved in an argument with a doorman at a bar/eating establishment. The argument escalated into a physical confrontation between the doorman and respondent. Respondent admits to consuming alcohol just prior to the above-described incident.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all conditions of the court sentence and supply written confirmation of compliance to OARC, abstain from any alcohol use, submit to breathalyzers four times a week for six months, attend Ethics School, pay all costs associated with this diversion, and have no disciplinable conduct for two years.

__________________

> In January 2008, respondent pled guilty to harassment, a class 3 misdemeanor, in violation of CRS § 18-9-111(1)(a). Respondent received a deferred sentence for eighteen months, and was ordered to satisfy several conditions as a part of that deferred sentence.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all conditions of the court sentence, pay all costs, attend Ethics School, and have no disciplinable conduct for one year.

__________________

> Respondent was stopped because his car was weaving into other lanes. Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI. The result of the portable breath test was .205; the chemical test showed a BAC of .216. Respondent pled guilty to DWAI. Respondent was sentenced to probation for eighteen months with conditions.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all terms and conditions of the court sentence, consult with an addictions specialist quarterly and comply with any recommendations from the addictions specialist, attend at least sixteen Alcoholics Anonymous or equivalent recovery programs within four months of executing agreement, attend Ethics School, and pay all costs associated with the eighteen-month Diversion Agreement.

__________________

> Respondent pled guilty to domestic violence/criminal mischief. The underlying incident involved respondent breaking the front door windowpane of her boyfriend’s house. In mitigation, respondent was having significant psychological issues.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all terms and conditions of her sentence and supervised probation, continue to see her therapist and doctor for as long as recommended during the course of the Diversion Agreement, attend and pass Ethics School, pay all costs, and have no other violations during the one-year diversion period.

__________________

Respondent was stopped for speeding (50 miles an hour in a 35-miles-per-hour zone). The police officer that stopped respondent smelled alcohol and made other observations that caused him to believe that respondent was under the influence of alcohol. Respondent submitted to and failed several field sobriety tests. His BAC was determined to be .170. Respondent pled guilty to DWAI, and was convicted and sentenced to one year of supervised probation.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with the court sentence, pay all costs, and have no disciplinable conduct for one year.

__________________

> In mid-August 2007, respondent was arrested and charged with violating CRS § 42-4-1301(1), DUI; and CRS § 42-4-711, improper mountain biking. Respondent did not submit to a chemical test to determine his BAC at the time of driving.

Respondent was convicted of violations of CRS § 42-4-1301(1)(g), DWAI. Respondent was sentenced to twelve months of unsupervised probation, twenty-four hours of useful public service, and various court costs. Respondent also was required to undergo an alcohol evaluation by the probation department and to follow the recommendations set forth in the resulting evaluation and referral recommendation report.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the one-year Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all conditions of the court sentence, attend Ethics School, have no disciplinable conduct for one year, and pay all costs associated with the Diversion Agreement.

__________________

> Officers were dispatched to a suspicious car that had driven through a cul-de-sac and into an open field. The car had been driven through the cul-de-sac, over a sidewalk through an open field, and down an embankment where it came to rest approximately 611 feet north of the roadway. No one was inside the car when the officers arrived. Based on information provided by a witness, officers contacted respondent walking in an area approximately one-half mile from where the car had wrecked. Respondent was arrested, charged, and convicted of DUI, DUI per se, failing to report an accident, and careless driving.

Rule Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: As part of the conditions of the two-year Diversion Agreement, respondent shall comply with all conditions of the criminal cases, comply with all conditions imposed by a counseling center, and attend Ethics School.

© 2008 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=2008.


Back