Disciplinary Case Summaries

• Jurisdiction: Colorado,United States
• Citation: Vol. 25 No. 4 Pg. 73
• Pages: 73
• Publication year: 1996

25 Colo.Law. 73 Colorado Lawyer 1996.

1996, April, Pg. 73. Disciplinary Case Summaries

---

73

Vol. 25, No. 4, Pg. 73

Disciplinary Case Summaries

Table(fn1) through January 1996)

Requests for investigation filed in 1996 143

Docketed for investigation 29

Not docketed for investigation 21

Review in progress 92

In abeyance 1

Cases dismissed by the inquiry panels in 1996 11

Letters of admonition sent in 1996 5

Cases in which reasonable cause was found in 1996 10

Cases pending before the inquiry panels on 02/01/96 355

_____________________
Footnotes

1 Figures supplied by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Public disciplinary and disability decisions are listed below. Decisions 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, when space permits, selected admonishments. Occasionally, articles will appear in this space in lieu of summaries or with fewer of them.

Public Decisions

Samuel Osborn Kuntz, Jr.: On January 8, 1996, the Supreme Court approved the respondent's conditional admission of misconduct and suspended the respondent for six months, effective thirty days after the issuance of its Opinion, and assessed costs of $1,009.07 against him. Moreover, the court ordered the respondent to initiate reinstatement via petition filed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 241.22(b)-(d), and to demonstrate that there are no medical or psychological bases that would impair his ability to fulfill his responsibilities as a lawyer. The court also ordered the respondent to establish that he has made restitution as a condition of reinstatement.

James P. Doherty: The Supreme Court approved the respondent's conditional admission of misconduct and publicly censured him on January 8, 1996. The court also assessed costs of $49.25 against him.

James Charles Damkar: The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent on January 8, 1996, effective immediately, following its approval of the respondent's conditional admssion of misconduct. The court assessed costs of $56.86 against him.

Alan R. Marsh: The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent on January 8, 1996, effective thirty days after the date of its Opinion, and assessed costs of $2,777.96 against him.

Rita Marie Farry: The Supreme Court...