Disciplinary Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 15 No. 9 Pg. 2203 |
| Pages | 2203 |
| Publication year | 1987 |
1987, December, Pg. 2203. Disciplinary Case Summaries
Request for investigation forms distributed2472,184Month Year
Cecil A. Hartman: On October 5, 1987, the Supreme Court suspended the respondent for six months and directed him to pay costs of the disciplinary proceedings in the amount of $3,523.66.
The respondent was suspended from practice before the Tax Court on September 14, 1985, for a period of six months for filing frivolous pleadings. In three separate cases, the respondent had presented in petitions the argument that "wages are not income" subject to taxation. After the respondent was suspended by the Tax Court, he was charged with failing to report such suspension to the Committee Counsel as required by C.R.C.P. Rule 241.17(b). Moreover, the respondent was charged with violating 241.17(d) and DR-1102(A)(5), DR1-102(A)(6) and DR7-102(A)(2) by virtue of his conduct before the Tax Court.
The court rejected the respondent's efforts to characterize the Tax Court as a narrow parochial body more akin to an executive agency than a court of law and diametrically in opposite to a court of general jurisdiction. The court held, in effect, that discipline imposed by the Tax Court is sufficient to trigger the reciprocal discipline provisions of the procedural rules governing lawyer discipline in Colorado. The court observed, "The Code of Professional Responsibility as well as prior rulings of this Court, however, have consistently held attorneys to the highest level of professional conduct---whether the attorney is practicing in federal court, state court, or before government agencies."
Allen David Abelman: The Supreme Court suspended the respondent on October 5, 1987, for six months, assessed costs in the amount of $455.48 against him, and ordered that he undergo reinstatement proceedings pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 241.22(c), during which he must submit proof of his successful compliance with a district court-ordered...
To continue reading
Request your trial