1987 Annual Report of the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee
| Publication year | 1988 |
| Pages | 817 |
| Citation | Vol. 17 No. 5 Pg. 817 |
1988, May, Pg. 817. 1987 Annual Report of the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee
This is the fourteenth report of the Grievance Committee. The Committee's previous reports have also been published in The Colorado Lawyer.(fn1) The previous reports offer perspectives and detail which, for the sake of brevity, are not repeated in this report.
Members of the Grievance Committee in 1987 included: William R. Gray, Chairman; Randall D. Jorgensen, Panel Vice-Chairman; J. Fern Black, Panel Vice-Chairwoman; Vicki J. Fowler; Hardy Long Frank, Ph.D.; J. Nicholas McGrath; Joseph E. Meyer, III; Frederick M. Miller, M.D.; Peter H. Ney; H. Clay Whitlow; David L. Wood; Kathy P. Bonham; Jeffrey A. Chase; Hannah I. Evans, Ph.D.; Thomas C. Henley; Terrance R. Kelly; Kathy A. Morall, M.D.; Arthur S. Nieto; and Kirk Rider.
During 1987, the Committee staff included: James P. Hol-laway, Committee Counsel; Nancy D. Berk, Jewell K.G. Biddle, Mark Bove, John S. Gleason, L. Michael Henry, Arthur S. Lucero, and Terry Tomsick, Investigative Counsel; Merlyn H. Kinchelow, Committee Secretary; Kimberly Bryan, Jeanette Fox, Gwen Lindsey, Adalina Martelon, Sharon Montoya, Mary McGuire, Patricia Morris, and Leigh Roberts, Secretaries; Dorothy Christensen, Bookkeeper; Cheryl Taylor, Attorney Registration Clerk; and Michele Frainier, secretary to Attorney Registration Clerk.
The office of the Grievance Committee is located at the Dominion Plaza, 600 17th St., Suite 500 S, Denver, CO 80202-5435; telephone (303) 893-3393.
The Grievance Committee's principal goal throughout 1987 was to accelerate its disposition of cases docketed for investigation, while paying particular attention to older cases. The Committee achieved its goal and, as a consequence, it reduced substantially not only the number of cases awaiting investigation, but also the overall age of those cases.
At the same time, however, the Committee referred more cases than ever to the Disciplinary Prosecutor for prosecution. This accelerated transfer of cases to the hearings aspect of the disciplinary process placed critical burdens on the prosecutor's office and on the volunteer Committee members who serve on hearing boards. The number of disciplinary cases which reached the Court for final resolution also grew considerably.
Our attention, therefore, has turned again toward fashioning strategies to deal as efficiently as possible with an increasing number of cases at all levels of the process.(fn2) Some strategies, detailed in previous annual reports, have already been developed and implemented. For example, we began using "preliminary inquiries" in earnest three years ago to reduce materially the number of grievances docketed for full investigation. At the same time, we formed subcommittees of the inquiry panels to consider reports of investigation in which the Investigator recommended dismissal of the grievance. Last year, we began naming former lawyer members of the Committee as presiding officers of hearing boards to enable us to reduce the number of cases we would have otherwise assigned to sitting members of the Committee.
Our search for similar administrative and procedural devices continues. Our principal goal in 1988 will be to find those devices and to present them to the Court for consideration. At the heart of our efforts to streamline the system is our strong desire to maintain the extensive participation of volunteer lawyers at each stage of the disciplinary process. We remain especially mindful also of the need to maintain a credible disciplinary system which protects the public and preserves the integrity of the profession while operating in a fiscally responsible manner.
The Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee is established and its operations are governed by the Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Lawyer Discipline and Disability, C.R.C.P. Rules 241.1-241.26. The proceedings of the Committee are confidential, unless a Court rule or order provides otherwise. Orders imposing public censure, suspension or disbarment are not confidential. Orders transferring lawyers to disability inactive status also are not confidential.
The nineteen-member Grievance Committee is divided into two nine-member panels.(fn3) Two members of each panel are nonlawyers. The remaining seven members of each panel are lawyers, as is the chairman, who serves as an ex officio member of each panel. Each panel acts as inquiry panel in some cases and as hearing panel in others. Neither panel acts as both inquiry panel and hearing panel in the same case. The Committee is assisted by a full-time Committee Counsel, four half-time investigative counsel, two full-time investigative counsel (all of whom serve as Investigators) and a full-time administrative staff of nine.
Anyone may complain about the conduct of a lawyer by filing a request for investigation ("grievance") with the Committee. When filed, either Committee Counsel or an Investigator reviews the grievance and often conducts a preliminary inquiry by writing to the lawyer and sometimes questioning other witnesses. Preliminary inquiries frequently reveal that professional misconduct has not occurred. As a consequence, many grievances are not docketed for further investigation. A grievance that is docketed for further investigation, however, is assigned to an Investigator for full investigation. Following full investigation, the Investigator presents a written report to an inquiry panel for consideration. If the Investigator recommends that the allegations be dismissed, he or she usually submits that report to a three-person subcommittee of an inquiry panel.
If an inquiry panel or a subcommittee dismisses the allegations, the complainant may file a formal complaint in his or her own name as if he or she were the Disciplinary Prosecutor. If an inquiry panel finds minor misconduct, it sends a letter of admonition. A lawyer who receives such a letter may request that it be vacated and that disciplinary proceedings continue by means of a formal complaint filed by the Disciplinary Prosecutor. If an inquiry panel finds reasonable cause to believe that more serious misconduct occurred, it refers the case to the Disciplinary Prosecutor who initiates disciplinary proceedings by filing a formal complaint.
All formal complaints are considered by a three-person hearing board in a trial-like hearing conducted in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The Colorado Rules of Evidence also apply. Moreover, the charges in the formal complaint must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Before a hearing is held, however, a respondent may submit a conditional admission of misconduct. Conditional admissions are considered by the inquiry panel that found reasonable cause, not by the hearing board or hearing panel. If the inquiry panel approves a conditional admission, the panel forwards it directly to the Court for consideration.
Each hearing board is usually composed of one member or former member of the hearing panel and two members of the bar who have been enlisted to serve. After the hearing, the hearing board submits its written findings of fact and recommendation to the appropriate hearing panel for review. Unless the hearing panel reviews the record developed before the hearing board, the hearing panel is bound by the findings of fact of the hearing board. The hearing panel, however, may modify the recommendation of the hearing board without first reviewing the record, provided the hearing panel specifies its reasons for doing so. Following review, the hearing panel may dismiss the complaint, send a letter of admonition, or recommend that the Court order a private or public censure, suspension or disbarment. When recommending discipline, the hearing panel may also recommend that the Court order a refund or restitution or impose other conditions. The parties or...
To continue reading
Request your trial