Opinions
Publication year | 2000 |
Pages | 147 |
Citation | Vol. 29 No. 7 Pg. 147 |
2000, July, Pg. 147. Opinions
Vol. 29, No. 7, Pg. 147
The Colorado Lawyer
July 2000
Vol. 29, No. 7 [Page 147]
July 2000
Vol. 29, No. 7 [Page 147]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
The Colorado Supreme Court has adopted a series of changes to
the attorney regulation system, including the establishment
of the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, pursuant
to C.R.C.P. 251.16, and a new intermediate appellate entity
known as the Appellate Discipline Commission, pursuant to
C.R.C.P. 251.24. The Court also made extensive revisions to
the rules governing the disciplinary process, repealing
C.R.C.P. 241 et seq., and replacing those rules with C.R.C.P
251 et seq. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge presides over
attorney regulation proceedings and issues orders together
with a two-member hearing board at trials and hearings. The
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence apply to
all attorney regulation proceedings before the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge. See C.R.C.P. 251.18(d)
Beginning with the September 1999 issue, The Colorado Lawyer
will publish the summaries and full-text opinions of the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Roger L. Keithley, and a
two-member hearing board, whose members are drawn from a pool
appointed by the Supreme Court, and the opinions of the
Appellate Discipline Commission
These Opinions may be appealed in accordance with C.R.C.P.
251.26 and C.R.C.P. 251.27.
The full-text opinions, along with their summaries, are
available on the CBA homepage at
http://www.cobar.org/tcl/index.htm. See page 146 for details.
Case No. 99PDJ051
The People of the State of Colorado,
Complainant,
v.
Richard B. Bauer,
Respondent.
May 22, 2000
Original Proceeding in Discipline before the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge
OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Opinion issued by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L.
Keithley and Hearing Board members Lisa M. Wayne and Thomas
C. Henley, both members of the bar.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
This matter was heard on February 2, 2000, before the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") and two
Hearing Board members, Lisa M. Wayne and Thomas C. Henley,
both members of the bar. Nancy L. Cohen, Deputy Regulation
Counsel, represented the People of the State of Colorado (the
"People"). Respondent did not appear either in
person or by counsel.1 The People's Exhibits 1 through 18
were admitted into evidence. The PDJ and Hearing Board heard
testimony from the People's witnesses Deborah L. Ortiz,
M. Kent Olsen, and David S. Wahl, M.D. The PDJ and Hearing
Board considered the exhibits and the Stipulation of Facts
submitted by the parties, assessed the credibility of the
witnesses and made the following findings of fact which were
established by clear and convincing evidence:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Richard Burton Bauer ("Bauer") has taken and
subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of
the Colorado Supreme Court on April 7, 1966, and is
registered upon the official records of the Court, attorney
registration number 01024. Bauer is subject to the
jurisdiction of this court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).2
Bauer has practiced law in Colorado for thirty-four years
primarily in the areas of estate, probate and real estate
law. On March 7, 1998, Joyce Bauer, respondent Bauer's
wife, passed away. Mrs. Bauer had been receiving $1,063.00 in
monthly social security benefits for five years prior to her
death. Bauer was aware that his wife received Social Security
Administration ("SSA") benefit payments. Prior to
her death, Mrs. Bauer had maintained two personal accounts at
Colorado National Bank, n/k/a US Bank: a checking account and
a money market account. Her social security payments were
electronically transferred monthly from the SSA into her
checking account. The monthly account summaries for the two
accounts were provided to the account holder on the same
statement.
During her last hospitalization, Mrs. Bauer directed Bauer to
sign her name to checks drawn on her checking account to pay
personal expenses and he did so.3 On the date of her death,
Mrs. Bauer's checking account was in an overdraft
condition. Approximately one week later, on March 16, 1998,
Bauer deposited $100 from his law office trust account into
Mrs. Bauer's checking account to remedy the overdraft
condition. At that time, Bauer knew there was less than $100
in his deceased wife's checking account.
Mrs. Bauer's will designated Bauer as the personal
representative, her sole beneficiary and surviving spouse.
Bauer filed Mrs. Bauer's original will with the clerk of
the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's Office but did
not conclude her estate matters.
Although Bauer had advised clients in similar situations that
the SSA must be notified of the death so as to terminate SSA
benefits, Bauer did not notify the SSA of Mrs. Bauer's
death. He knew that until such time as the SSA was informed
of Mrs. Bauer's death, SSA would continue to send benefit
payments. On May 22, 1998, Bauer submitted a small estate
affidavit to the bank for the purpose of closing Mrs.
Bauer's money market account. At that time, Bauer did not
close the checking account into which the SSA payments were
being electronically deposited. SSA continued to
electronically transfer monthly payments into Mrs.
Bauer's checking account.
Notwithstanding Bauer's knowledge that his wife's
checking account contained less than $100 following her
death, between March 13, 1998 and November 30, 1998, Bauer
wrote nine checks on his late wife's checking account
made payable to himself in the total amount of $7,175.00.4
Bauer signed his deceased wife's name to each of the nine
checks. The funds removed from the account were used to pay
personal expenses.
In November 1998, the SSA received notification of Mrs.
Bauer's death. An SSA representative contacted Bauer on
November 23, 1998 and advised him that the total amount paid
by the SSA since Mrs. Bauer's death was $8,504.00 and
would have to be repaid. Bauer did not dispute the SSA's
entitlement to a refund and remitted that amount to the SSA
on the same day.
Bauer testified5 that during the eight month period following
his wife's death, he never reviewed her account
statements to determine whether there were sufficient funds
in the account to cover the checks he wrote, nor was he aware
of the source of the funds in the account. In light of
Bauer's extensive probate and estate experience, his
knowledge regarding the duties and responsibilities of
personal representatives and the procedures necessary to
close an estate, Bauer's testimony regarding the source
and contents of the checking account is not credible.
Prior to her death, the Bauers had sold the marital home and
Bauer...
To continue reading
Request your trial