|The Colorado Lawyer|
Vol. 39, No. 3 [Page 111]
© 2010 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved.
All material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is copyrighted by the Colorado Bar Association. Before accessing any specific article, click here for disclaimer information.
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Disciplinary Case Summaries
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 Regarding
Conditional Admission 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. 10PDJ001. People v. Bath. 01/08/2010. Attorney Suspended Seventy-Five Days.
The PDJ approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended David Eugene Bath, attorney registration number 05679, from the practice of law for seventy-five days. The suspension was effective January 8, 2010.
Respondent repeatedly failed to advise his clients that consultation with independent counsel might be advisable before entering into business transactions with them, and failed to obtain their consent in a separate writing. He also failed to advise his clients of conflicts that might be inherent in his representation of all defendants to a state court action. In addition, respondent failed to obtain informed consent in writing from his former clients when he agreed to represent another person in the same matter in which that person’s interests were materially adverse to the interests of his former clients. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5, and violated Colo. RPC 1.7(b), 1.8(a), and 1.9(a).
No. 09PDJ065. People v. Hicks. 01/11/2010. Attorney Publicly Censured.
The PDJ approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and publicly censured Timothy Cameron Hicks, attorney registration number 21880. The sanction was effective January 11, 2010.
In December 2008, respondent pled guilty to driving while ability impaired, in violation of CRS § 42-4-1301(1)(b). On April 1, 2009, he was sentenced to 180 days in jail without probation or community service. 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) and C.R.C.P. 251.5(b).
No. 09PDJ100. People v. McCarthy. 01/04/2010. Attorney Suspended Sixty Days.
The PDJ approved a Conditional Admission of Misconduct submitted by the parties and suspended Paul B. McCarthy, attorney registration number 23912, from the practice of law for sixty days. The suspension was effective January 4, 2010.
On June 12, 2009, the Rhode Island Supreme Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for two months after it found he violated their ethical rules 4.1 and 8.4(c). Respondent had traveled to New Jersey knowing he is not authorized to act as a notary public in that state; directed a third party to falsely sign another’s name to a mortgage, notarizing that signature; and falsely identified the date and location of the real estate closing. Respondent’s misconduct constituted grounds for the imposition of reciprocal discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.21(d).
© 2010 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=2010.