Opinions
Publication year | 2000 |
Pages | 101 |
Citation | Vol. 29 No. 3 Pg. 101 |
2000, March, Pg. 101. Opinions
Vol. 29, No. 3, Pg. 101
The Colorado Lawyer
March 2000
Vol. 29, No. 3 [Page 101]
March 2000
Vol. 29, No. 3 [Page 101]
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 100 for details.
Case No. 99AD002
In the Matter of Doug Vincent,
Attorney-Respondent.
January 26, 2000
Proceeding in Discipline
EN BANC
ATTORNEY SUSPENDED
John S. Gleason, Attorney Regulation Counsel, Nancy L. Cohen,
Deputy Regulation Counsel, Kenneth B. Pennywell, Assistant
Regulation Counsel, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for
Complainant
Michael G. Cooksey, Littleton, Colorado, Attorney for
Attorney-Respondent
BY THE COMMISSION
In this attorney regulation case, a Hearing Board
("Board") suspended the respondent, Doug Vincent,
from the practice of law for two years.1 The Board further
specified in its order that if Vincent were to complete
attendance at thirty-five hours of continuing legal education
programs (twenty hours of which is to be focused on COLTAF
accounting requirements, segregation of client funds, and the
rules of professional conduct) and prove successful
completion of the Multi-state Professional Responsibility
Examination, then one year and three months of his suspension
would be stayed, and he would be placed on probation for that
same period, under certain terms and conditions.2 The Board
also ordered Vincent to file a petition for reinstatement,
citing C.R.C.P. 251.29, to be reinstated under the prescribed
terms and conditions of probation.3 Subsequently, the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge, noting that no objection had
been made by the Attorney Regulation Counsel, conditionally
granted Vincent's motion to stay the Board's order
pending this appeal.
Regulation Counsel, attorneys for the complainant, appeals
the decision of the Board, contending that its finding of
fact that Vincent did not knowingly convert client funds is
clearly erroneous, that the Board's disciplinary sanction
is unduly lenient, and that Vincent should be disbarred.
Vincent in turn cross-appeals, contending that the
Board's sanction is manifestly excessive and that it
should be reduced to a six-month suspension, with
reinstatement following by operation of rule rather than on
petition. He also contends that he should not be placed on
probation.
For the reasons expressed herein, we affirm the decision of
the Board.
I.
At the conclusion of the hearing in this disciplinary
proceeding, the Board made the following factual findings by
clear and convincing evidence.
Doug Vincent has been licensed to practice law in Colorado
since 1980. In November 1989, a client hired Vincent to
represent the client's company in a breach of contract
suit against another company and an officer of that company
who resided overseas. Vincent, a patent attorney, had no
prior experience handling litigation matters, crafting
contingent fee agreements, or receiving client funds
designated for paying costs. His legal experience had been
limited to intellectual property matters involving flat fees
from which the lawyer was solely responsible for costs
incurred in the representation. Nonetheless, Vincent entered
into an oral contingent fee agreement with his client who was
to pay costs. Because the details of the fee agreement were
not in writing, Vincent and his client held different
understandings of how payment of costs would be handled.
In 1990 and 1991, Vincent asked the client for money to cover
expenses that Vincent had incurred on the client's behalf
in the litigation. The client gave Vincent $700, but Vincent
did not deposit all of that amount into his Colorado Trust
Account Foundation ("COLTAF") account. Moreover,
Vincent did not use all of the money he received to pay those
who had supplied the litigation-related services. Rather,
Vincent gave credit on his internal accounts to the client
for the amounts paid, considered the third-party vendor
charges to be his (Vincent's) sole responsibility, and
withdrew the funds traceable to the client's payments and
spent those funds for goods and services unrelated to the
client's matter. Vincent believed the funds were his
funds and treated them as such.
In February 1993, the client's wife paid Vincent $400
designated for an asset search to be performed by a
third-party vendor. Vincent deposited those funds into his
COLTAF account, but he did not use them to pay for the asset
search. In July 1993, Vincent received $757.54 from the
client for payment of two specific third-party vendor
charges. Vincent deposited $500 of the $757.54 into his
COLTAF account but took $257.54 in cash as a "cash
back" and spent it for personal and business purposes
unrelated to the client's matter. Moreover, Vincent did
not use the $500 as the client had intended to pay the
vendors.
In 1997, nearly four years after the client had provided
funds to Vincent to pay the third-party vendors, one of those
vendors contacted Vincent to discuss the outstanding
indebtedness. During their conversation, Vincent told the
vendor that he believed the indebtedness had been discharged
in Vincent's personal bankruptcy. He agreed to provide
bankruptcy records verifying this discharge to the vendor.
Vincent's discharge in bankruptcy was dated June 17,
1992. Vincent had retained the vendor to do investigative
work on or about April 8, 1993. Vincent knew or should have
known at the time he claimed that his debt had been
discharged that his bankruptcy had predated the indebtedness
and thus, the indebtedness had not been discharged. Moreover,
Vincent did not send the bankruptcy records to the vendor as
he promised.
In January 1997, the client learned that Vincent had not paid
at least two of the three vendors for which the client
previously had paid funds to Vincent. The client subsequently
filed a request for investigation with the Disciplinary
Counsel. Several months after the request for investigation
was filed and more than four years after the vendors had
provided the services requested and submitted bills to
Vincent, Vincent paid all of the outstanding third-party
vendor charges. The client suffered no financial harm as a
result of Vincent's mishandling of the funds provided.
Vincent deposited both his personal and client funds into his
COLTAF account and expended...
To continue reading
Request your trial