Disciplinary Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 16 No. 1 Pg. 85 |
| Pages | 85 |
| Publication year | 1987 |
1987, January, Pg. 85. Disciplinary Case Summaries
Complaint* forms requested226
David S. Yost: On November 3, 1986, the Supreme Court suspended the respondent for three years and assessed costs of $2,828.04 against him. The respondent was found to have violated C.R.C.P. Rule 241.6(1) and (3) (acts or omissions that violate the Code of Professional Responsibility and the highest standards of honesty, justice, or morality), DR1-102(A)(1) (violation of a disciplinary rule), DR1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), DR1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), DR6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him), and DR9-102(B)(4) (failure to pay or deliver promptly funds or property of a client upon request).
After being retained and receiving substantial fees, the respondent filed suit for a client in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. On defendant's motion, the case was transferred to Kansas City. Thereafter, when the case should have been transferred back to Colorado, the respondent never took the steps necessary to secure the transfer. He ignored letters from counsel for the defendant, failed to appear for a pretrial hearing in Kansas City, ignored an order to show cause, and allowed his client's case to be dismissed for lack of prosecution. When his client asked for an explanation, the respondent produced a copy of a letter purportedly sent earlier to his client stating that the case could not be won. The client denied receiving the letter and noted that it had been sent to the wrong address. When the client asked for an accounting, the respondent claimed that his records had been stolen from his automobile.
The respondent neglected another legal matter by failing to file an action on behalf of another client. He told his client, however, that the action had been filed. The respondent did file a related action for his client...
To continue reading
Request your trial