Disciplinary Case Summaries

• Publication year: 1992
• Pages: 291
• Citation: Vol. 21 No. 2 Pg. 291

21 Colo.Law. 291 Colorado Lawyer 1992.

1992, February, Pg. 291. Disciplinary Case Summaries

---

291

Vol. 21, No. 2, Pg. 291

Disciplinary Case Summaries

Table(fn1) (through November 1991)

Requests for investigation filed in 19911136

Docketed for investigation386

Not docketed for investigation599

Preliminary inquiries in progress23

In abeyance6

Cases dismissed by the inquiry panels in 1991251

Letters of admonition sent in 199178

Cases in which reasonable cause was found in 199196

Cases pending before the inquiry panels on 11/31297

_____________________
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

Donald K. Smith: The court publicly censured the respondent on November 4, 1991, and assessed costs of $3,059.63 against him. The lawyer neglected the administration of a trust, in violation of DR6-101(A)(3), and caused harm to the beneficiary when he withdrew $5,000 from the trust and returned it to the settlor. In imposing the public censure, the court noted that the respondent had been admonished previously for neglect of legal matters, but that he had not charged fees that fully reflected the time and effort he had expended as trustee.

Roger W. Redman: The court suspended the respondent on November 4, 1991, for forty-five days, effective immediately, and assessed costs of $395.73 against him. After being suspended for failure to comply with mandatory requirements for continuing legal education, the respondent agreed to represent a client in a dissolution of marriage action. He accepted a retainer of $750.

The court concluded that the respondent had an affirmative duty to inform his client that he had been suspended. His failure to do so violated DR1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). Furthermore, after accepting the retainer, the respondent had a duty to obtain substitute counsel for his client; his failure in that regard...