Disciplinary Case Summaries

• Publication year: 1992
• Pages: 743
• Citation: Vol. 21 No. 4 Pg. 743

21 Colo.Law. 743 Colorado Lawyer 1992.

1992, April, Pg. 743. Disciplinary Case Summaries

---

743

Vol. 21, No. 4, Pg. 743

Disciplinary Case Summaries

Table(fn1) (through January 1992)

Requests for investigation filed in 1992127

Docketed for investigation13

Not docketed for investigation7

Preliminary inquiries in progress107

In abeyance 0

Cases dismissed by the inquiry panels in 199213

Letters of admonition sent in 19923

Cases in which reasonable cause was found in 19920

Cases pending before the inquiry panels on 01/31274

_____________________
Footnotes

1. Figures supplied by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Public disciplinary and disability decisions are listed below. Those issued by opinion appear in their entirety in the Colorado Supreme Court "Opinions" section of The Colorado Lawyer. Public disciplinary decisions involving issues that are not routine are summarized below, together with all private censures and selected admonishments. Occasionally, articles will appear in this space in lieu of summaries or with fewer of them.

Public Decisions

John P. Akolt, III: On January 13, 1992, the court suspended the respondent for thirty days, effective thirty days after the issuance of its opinion, and assessed costs of $755.07 against him.

In determining appropriate discipline, the court noted that had the respondent "displayed a pattern of misconduct with respect to other client matters, or had a history of discipline, or if actual harm to the client had been proved, . . ." then a thirty-day suspension would have been too lenient.

Lowell Gary Hebenstreit: The court disbarred the respondent on January 13, 1992, effective immediately, and assessed costs of $1,766.05 against him.

Joseph P. Rader: On January 13, 1992, the court suspended the respondent for three months, effective in thirty days, and assessed costs of $2,958.70 against him.

The lawyer was charged, inter alia, with violating DR1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The hearing board concluded that the respondent "made representations by word or action with reckless ignorance of the truth or falsity of such representations."

The court concluded that to establish a violation of the rule, the element of scienter must be shown. The court disagreed, however, with the respondent's contention that actual knowledge or intent...