Disciplinary Case Summaries

Publication year1987
Pages2014
15 Colo.Law. 2014
Colorado Lawyer
1987.

1987, November, Pg. 2014. Disciplinary Case Summaries




2014


Vol. 15, No. 9, Pg. 2014

Disciplinary Case Summaries

From the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee

Column Ed.: James P. Hollaway, Committee Counsel Denver---893-3393

Table
(August 1987)

MonthYear

Request for investigation forms distributed2411,937


Requests for investigation filed101728

Cases not docketed for investigation31207

Preliminary inquiries made30225

Cases docketed for investigation40295

Cases placed in abeyance01

Letters of admonition sent861

Cases sent to the Disciplinary Prosecutor8109

Cases before the Inquiry Panels on 8/31278

Public Discipline

Gilbert Ray Montano: On September 8, 1987, the Supreme Court disbarred the respondent following a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding predicated upon his having been disbarred twice by the Arizona Supreme Court. In addition to ordering his disbarment, the court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceeding in the amount of $316.28; directed him to comply with the requirements of C.R.C.P. Rule 241.21; ordered that he not be readmitted until he has made restitution as ordered by the Arizona Supreme Court; and further conditioned his readmission upon compliance with C.R.C.P. Rule 241.22(a) and proof of payment of costs.

In its 1985 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the respondent had committed multiple violations of the Arizona Code of Professional Responsibility. In three cases, the respondent neglected to perform the legal services for which he was retained, deceived his clients into believing that the work had been performed, and improperly delayed returning retainers to his clients.

One of these clients also entrusted the respondent with more than $10,000 to be held in his trust account for the client's future use. The respondent failed to safeguard the funds and, when he issued his client a check for $10,000, it was returned because of insufficient funds. The respondent also induced the same client to enter into an investment agreement with him and a third party which resulted in the complete loss of the client's investment. The respondent failed to (1) document his purported guarantee of the client's investment, (2) disclose his conflict of interest and (3) advise his client of her right to independent counsel.

In the remaining matter considered...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT