1982 Annual Report of the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee
| Publication year | 1983 |
| Pages | 743 |
1983, May, Pg. 743. 1982 Annual Report of the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee
This is the ninth report of the Grievance Committee. The 1981 Annual Report appears in The Colorado Lawyer at Vol. 11, No. 6 (June 1982), page 1501. The other reports previously published in The Colorado Lawyer are listed at the beginning of the 1980 Annual Report which appears in The Colorado Lawyer at Vol. 10, No. 6 (June 1981), page 1314.
The following individuals were members of the Grievance Committee in 1982: Alex Stephen Keller, Chairman; Frances A. Koncilja, Panel Vice-Chairman; James V. Phelps, Panel Vice-Chairman; Wiley Y. Daniel; Hardy Long Frank, Ph.D.; Lynn A. Hammond; Constance L. Hauver; Donald A. Johnston, M.D.; James T. Moran; Peter H. Ney; Don W. Sears; J. Fern Black; Hannah I. Evans, Ph.D.; Thomas C. Henley; Richard F. Hennessey; Richard P. Holme; William R. Lucero; Kirk Rider; and William M. Shanahan, M.D.
At the end of 1982, the Committee's staff consisted of James P. Hollaway, Committee Counsel; Investigative Counsel: Mark S. Bove, Terry Tomsick, L. Michael Henry, and Terry J. Miller; Merlyn H. Kinchelow, Committee Secretary; Administrative Staff: Leigh Roberts, Jeanette Fox, Pat Casala, and Dorothy Christensen; and Cheryl Taylor, Attorney Registration Clerk.
The Grievance Committee operated during 1982 much as it had in the past, but was governed in many respects by new rules of procedure; i.e., C.R.C.P. 241.1-241.25, which took effect January 1, 1982. Acting under those new rules, the Grievance Committee sought to make improvements in several phases of its operation. Moreover, as hoped, the Committee succeeded in concluding its investigations in almost all of its old cases; in more speedily disposing of many of its newer cases; and in more quickly reaching dispositions for submission to the Court following hearings in "formal" cases.
The Grievance Committee was busy in other areas as well, as the Chairman embarked upon a renewed campaign to visit with local bar associations to discuss how the Committee works and how to avoid grievances. In a surprising number of cases, it becomes apparent during an investigation that the lawyer complained of was not even aware that his conduct might be in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Committee intends to continue an aggressive public relations campaign to acquaint the Bar with the types of conduct which most frequently cause complaints and how to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the practice of law. Such a public relations campaign must be continued on a long-term basis because, as the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
The Grievance Committee also renewed its efforts to alert local bar association grievance committees of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and, hence, its Committee) in the area of "colorable" complaints made about lawyer behavior---"colorable" meaning those complaints with alleged facts which, if proven, would constitute grounds for discipline.
In March 1982, the Grievance Committee welcomed a team of evaluators from the National Center for Professional Responsibility and the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Professional Discipline. The Grievance Committee is carefully studying the recommendations made by the evaluators, and it is hoped that the Committee's report and response to the evaluation will reach the Court in early 1983.
In July 1982, the Grievance Committee relocated its offices, moving from the Denver Hilton Office Building to the Sherman Garden Building, 190 E. 9th Ave., Suite 440, Denver, CO 80203; telephone (303) 832-3701.
Two especially significant developments are reflected in the statistics set forth in greater detail in the balance of this report. First, the upward movement in the number of grievances (known officially as "requests for investigation") has resumed. Indeed, for the first time, over 700 grievances were filed with the Grievance Committee in one year. However, this increase in the actual number of grievances filed does not represent a percentage increase in the number of grievances filed versus the number of lawyers practicing law in Colorado. In fact, the percentage has actually declined. For instance, in 1980 and 1981, about 10.6 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively, of the lawyers in practice had grievances filed against them.(fn1) The 1982 percentage is down to 10.2 percent.(fn2) Second, lawyers are now filing "conditional admissions of misconduct" in disciplinary cases in lieu of going to trial.
The expected effect of these two developments is that the burden on the inquiry panels will increase faster than the burden on hearing boards and the hearing panels, as the inquiry panels must not only review all matters docketed for investigation, but must also pass upon all conditional admissions of misconduct.
During 1982, 1,645 "request for investigation" forms were furnished to potential complainants (the total in 1981 was 1,322). However, only 480 forms were returned. This substantial difference between the number of forms requested and the number returned indicates that many complainants lose interest in pursuing their grievance, perhaps because they believe that the Grievance Committee cannot provide the kind of remedy or assistance they desire. At the same time, the large number of requests for forms suggests a greater degree of dissatisfaction with more lawyers than is
actually seen by the Grievance Committee in the form of actual requests for investigation.
In addition to the number of requests for investigation submitted on forms provided by the Grievance Committee, 256 requests for investigation were filed in the form of a letter or other writing, bringing the total for 1982 to 736 (up from the 1981 total of 668).
Of the 736 requests for investigation submitted, 314 (247 in 1981) were found to assert no colorable claim of misconduct which if proved would warrant the imposition of discipline. Of the remaining 422 (421 in 1981), 419 were logged for investigation by one of the inquiry panels of the Grievance Committee. Three requests for investigation remain in abeyance, pending receipt of additional information from the complainants.
During 1982, 423 investigations were completed by the inquiry panels, up from 346 in 1981. There were 266 cases pending at the beginning of 1982, and 262 cases at the end of 1982. This large number of pending cases continues to be cause for concern. If this "cloud" has a silver lining, however, it is that virtually all of those 262 pending cases were filed in 1982, whereas in prior years many of the cases pending at year's end were three or four years old. Nonetheless, the raw number of cases still pending, coupled with more than 400 new cases expected in 1983, will make it increasingly difficult to conduct investigations promptly.
Given the prospect that an even larger caseload would be on hand at the end of 1983, the Committee sought a means to increase its ability to investigate more cases faster. After considering the use of more enlistees; the hire of additional investigative counsel (full or part-time); an even more rigorous prescreening of grievances by Committee Counsel; and a combination of those approaches, the Committee opted for the hire of a full-time investigative counsel. It is hoped that the position will be filled in early 1983.
At the inquiry panel level, probable cause for the imposition of discipline more serious than a letter of admonition was found in 15.8 percent or 67 of 423 cases investigated in 1982. Letters of admonition were imposed in 42 cases. Twelve cases resulted in stipulations for discipline (conditional admissions of misconduct) being forwarded directly to the Court. The remaining cases (302 or 71.4 percent) were dismissed.
At first glance, these figures, when compared to those of 1981, suggest that more serious breaches of professional standards may have occurred in 1982. For instance, in 1981, 14 percent (versus 1982's 15.8 percent) of the cases investigated resulted in findings of probable cause, and more letters of admonition (47 as opposed to 42) were imposed. However, statistically, the 1982 numbers do not represent dramatic swings in what ordinarily is to be expected from year to year. In other words, it would not be correct to look at the 1982 results and conclude that lawyer behavior is becoming more unethical. In fact, the percentage of cases dismissed in 1982 is the highest since 1978. Moreover, if the number of cases dismissed after investigation was added to the number of cases received which did not even make a colorable claim of misconduct, the percentage of cases dismissed would reach over 83 percent. Significantly, Colorado's percentage of cases dismissed is consistent with the results seen in other jurisdictions across the country.
The number of trials conducted by hearing boards in any given year depends on a variety of factors, but the two primary ones are the number of cases referred to the Disciplinary Prosecutor for trial and the number of conditional admissions of misconduct which are filed.
In 1982, hearing boards conducted trials in 43 disciplinary proceedings (including 2 reinstatement proceedings). This number of trials is significantly lower than the 66 trials conducted in 1981. However, it must be remembered that in 1980, the inquiry panels forwarded 98 cases for trial, many of which were heard in 1981. Moreover, in 1981, the inquiry panels found probable cause in only 49 cases. In 1982, 67 cases were found to warrant "formal" proceedings, but then a sizable number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial