The summaries of disciplinary case Opinions and Conditional Admissions of Misconduct are prepared by the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) and are provided as a service by the Colorado Bar Association (CBA). The CBA cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries.
The full text of the disciplinary Opinions, when published by the PDJ, follows the summaries page(s). The summaries and full-text Opinions also are accessible from the CBA website: www.cobar.org (click on "Opinions/Rules/Statutes"). Opinions, including exhibits, complaints, amended complaints, and summaries, also are available at the PDJ website, www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm, and on LexisNexis.®
Summaries of Decisions Issued by the PDJ
No. 08PDJ088. People v. Mason. 06/15/2009. Attorney Disbarred.
Following a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18, a hearing board disbarred Robert John Mason, attorney registration number 04324, from the practice of law. Disbarment was effective July 16, 2009.
Respondent knowingly violated the terms of a prior disciplinary order of suspension when he provided legal advice to one client and prepared legal documents for a second client. His misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c) and 5.5(a).
No. 07PDJ078 (consolidated with Nos. 07PDJ085, 08PDJ004, 08PDJ027, 08PDJ040, and 08PDJ057). People v. Rasure. 05/20/2009. Attorney Disbarred.
Following a sanctions hearing, the PDJ disbarred Charles William Rasure, Jr., attorney registration number 25569, from the practice of law. Disbarment was effective June 20, 2009.
Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct in several client matters, which included the knowing conversion of client property. He failed to answer the complaints filed by the People, and the facts admitted by default proved multiple violations of Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(f)(1), 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). Respondent also failed to present any mitigating evidence or otherwise participate in these proceedings in a meaningful manner. Accordingly, the PDJ found no adequate basis to depart from the presumptive sanction of disbarment.
Summaries of Decisions Regarding
Conditional Admissions of Misconduct Issued by the PDJ
The PDJ’s approval of a Conditional Admission 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 PDJ, 1560 Broadway, Ste. 675, Denver, CO 80202; (303) 866-6658; www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm. They also are available on LexisNexis.®
No. 09PDJ020. People v. Carroll. 06/26/2009. Attorney Suspension Stayed Pending Three-Year Probation.
The PDJ approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended David Sean Carroll, attorney registration number 12746, from the practice of law for three months, all stayed pending the successful completion of a three-year period of probation. The sanction was effective June 26, 2009.
Respondent failed to competently and diligently represent his client in an F.E.D. action, filed meritless post-trial and appellate pleadings, and failed to obey a court order to pay attorney fees. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and 3.4(c).
No. 09PDJ024. People v. McAlister. 06/26/2009. Attorney Suspension Stayed Pending Two-Year Probation.
The PDJ approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended Thomas Roderic McAlister, attorney registration number 31332, from the practice of law for thirty days, all stayed pending the successful completion of a two-year period of probation. The sanction was effective June 26, 2009.
Respondent failed to maintain client ledgers or a general ledger for his COLTAF account and failed to reconcile his account on a regular basis from June 2007 to July 2008. He initially failed to respond to several requests for information during the disciplinary investigation. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 1.15(j)(1), 1.15(j)(2), 8.1(b), and C.R.C.P. 251.5(d).