Opinions
Publication year | 2000 |
Pages | 109 |
Citation | Vol. 29 No. 2 Pg. 109 |
2000, February, Pg. 109. Opinions
Vol. 29, No. 2, Pg. 109
The Colorado Lawyer
February 2000
Vol. 29, No. 2 [Page 109]
February 2000
Vol. 29, No. 2 [Page 109]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Case No. 99AD003
In the Matter of Rodolfo Reveles
Attorney-Respondent
December 17, 1999
EN BANC
PUBLIC CENSURE
John S. Gleason, Attorney Regulation Counsel, James C. Coyle
Assistant Regulation Counsel, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for
Complainant
R.D. Jorgensen, Pueblo, Colorado, Attorney for
Attorney-Respondent
BY THE COMMISSION
Commissioners Lebsack and Fulton do not participate.
Respondent was charged with two counts of violating the
following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4(a)
(violation of a rule of professional conduct); Rule 3.5(c)
(conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal); Rule 8.4(d)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and
Rule 8.4(h) (other conduct that adversely reflects on fitness
to practice law). These charges arose out of the following
facts, which were found by the hearing board and adopted by a
Hearing Panel of the grievance committee. These findings are
binding before this Commission unless it is determined that
based upon the record, the findings are clearly erroneous.
See C.R.C.P. 251.26(a). We do not believe these findings to
be clearly erroneous:
FACTS
1. The Respondent has taken and subscribed to the oath of
admission, was admitted to the board of this court on October
29, 1991, and is registered upon the official records of this
court, registration no. 20958. He is subject to the
jurisdiction of this court and its grievance committee in
these proceedings. The Respondent's registered business
address is 134 West Main Street, Suite 35, Trinidad, Colorado
81082.
Count I
2. The Respondent is a deputy public defender in southern
Colorado. On May 6, 1997, the Respondent represented a
juvenile in a trial to the court in Huerfano County before
the Honorable Claude W. Appel.
3. At the conclusion of the trial, as Judge Appel was reading
from the statute and issuing a guilty verdict, the Respondent
openly argued with the judge in the presence of the juvenile
client, members of the client's family, court officers
and personnel. The Respondent came out from behind counsel
table and paced in front of the jury box, while talking in a
loud, indignant, argumentative voice and waiving his hands
above his head.
4. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted Judge Appel as the
judge attempted to make his ruling, despite the judge's
requests that the Respondent allow him to finish. The
Respondent appeared to be "spoiling for a fight"
and intent on "egging the judge on." At one point,
the following exchange took place:
THE COURT: I'm not going to allow you to take over the
courtroom, Mr. Reveles. Sit down or we're going to have a
contempt action.
MR. REVELES: Okay, Judge. I think the first issue then is
under People versus — Rodriguez versus District
Court I'm entitled to make a record. The third issue is
the Court interrupted me.
THE COURT: I interrupted you, Mr. Reveles? Take five minutes
and chill out.
MR. REVELES: I need to make a record based on what the Court
just said.
THE COURT: The Court just found your client guilty. Like
courts do every day. And they don't end up in an argument
with an attorney.
5. Judge Appel then attempted to schedule a sentencing date
for Mr. Reveles' client. Despite the judge's earlier
warnings, the Respondent continued to interrupt the judge,
claiming a case entitled Rodriguez vs. District Court allowed
him to make a contemporaneous record. The Respondent refused
to cooperate in the scheduling of a sentencing date [and] the
judge indicated he was inclined to impose a sentence at that
time, except he lacked a pre-sentence report; and the court
scheduled the sentencing for May 16, 1997.
6. Between the time of the trial and the date of sentencing,
the Respondent did not speak to Judge Appel about his
conduct. On May 16, 1997, at sentencing, Judge Appel
summarized the Respondent's conduct at trial and warned
that he would find the Respondent in contempt if there were a
recurrence of the Respondent's conduct. The judge also
indicated that he had reviewed the case cited by the
Respondent regarding objections. Both Judge Appel and the
Respondent acknowledged that the correct case name was People
v. Jones, 780 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1989). Judge Appel found that
the Jones case was not relevant to the issue of the
Respondent's conduct at the bench trial. The Respondent
alleged that the court had failed to provide him with an
opportunity to establish a record for appeal and he again
asserted his position that the Jones case was applicable.
Count II
7. On April 7, 1997, the Respondent appeared on behalf of his
client, Juan Mares, at a preliminary hearing before the
Honorable Jesse Manzanares in Las Animas County District
Court. During direct and cross-examination of a police
officer, the Respondent openly argued with the judge in the
presence of the Respondent's client, court officers and
personnel. The Respondent's tone of voice was loud and
excited, and he gestured with his arms above his head.
8. The Respondent repeatedly failed to comply with the
court's directives to continue with his cross-examination
of the witness. The judge indicated that if the Respondent
did not "move on," he would ask the sheriff to
escort the Respondent downstairs to "think about how
long it might take before agreeing to following the
court's ruling and the court's order."
9. In response, the Respondent asked: "(t)he court is
not permitting further questioning in spite of Rodriguez v.
District Court, is that correct?" The court directed the
Respondent to make his record and proceed with relevant
questions, and at that time the Respondent complied with this
request.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Based upon these facts, the complainant argued that the
Respondent should be publicly censured and that he be
required to attend ethics school or a National Institute of
Trial Advocacy Training Program. Relying on ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyers Sanctions (1991 and Supp. 1992) ("ABA
Standards"), the hearing board recommended that the
Respondent be suspended because he acted "knowing, not
negligently, when he became loud, disrespectful,
argumentative and disruptive with Judge Appel and Judge
Manzanares." Additionally, the hearing board found
aggravating factors which included a pattern of misconduct,
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct,
and the fact that Respondent focused only on himself and not
how his conduct might adversely affect his client. Further,
the board was "concerned by the Respondent's
testimony that he has, on three other occasions, been
threatened with contempt by different judges. On one
occasion, the court issued a contempt order which it later
rescinded." As a mitigating factor, the board noted the
absence of prior disciplinary record.
The board recommended that the Respondent be suspended for a
period of 60 days, with all but 30 days of the suspension
stayed on the condition that the Respondent successfully
complete a one-year period of probation, and that as a
condition of probation, the Respondent be required to undergo
a mental health examination using a mental health
professional approved by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The board further required that Respondent follow any
treatment plan suggested by the mental health professional,
and submit periodic reports from the professional to the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel concerning Respondent's
progress and treatment. As further conditions, the board
recommended that the Respondent participate in either ethics
school or a trial advocacy program sponsored by the National
Institute of Trial Advocacy, as selected by the Respondent;
that he commit no further violation of the Colorado Rules of
Professional Conduct; and that he be assessed the costs of
the proceedings.
The Hearing Panel (Panel A) accepted the findings of fact as
well as the recommended sanction with the modification that
the mental health examination would be optional and not a
condition of probation.
DISCUSSION
As stated above, the findings of the hearing board are not
clearly erroneous and are hereby adopted.
That is not true with respect to the discipline imposed. The
Appellate Discipline Commission is required to affirm the
form of discipline imposed by the Panel unless it determines
that such discipline bears no relation to the misconduct, is
manifestly excessive, or is otherwise unreasonable. C.R.C.P.
251.26(a). For the reasons discussed below, we concluded that
the discipline is manifestly excessive and unreasonable.
First, we are aware of no authority, and none has been cited,
that would support this level of discipline for these
actions. Indeed, counsel for Complainant conceded at oral
argument that he was unaware of any such authority.
The four cases relied on by the hearing board not only failed
to support the discipline imposed here, but appear to mandate
a public censure as the maximum discipline for these
offenses. In People v. Dalton, 840 P.2d 351 (Colo. 1992), an
attorney made allegations against, and displayed disrespect
for, a county court judge, prosecutor and court reporter. A
public censure was imposed. In People v. Cohan, 913 P.2d 523...
To continue reading
Request your trial