Opinions
Publication year | 2000 |
Pages | 137 |
Citation | Vol. 29 No. 11 Pg. 137 |
2000, November, Pg. 137. Opinions
Vol. 29, No. 11, Pg. 137
The Colorado Lawyer
November 2000
Vol. 29, No. 11 [Page 137]
November 2000
Vol. 29, No. 11 [Page 137]
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 136 for details.
Case No. 99PDJ096
The People of the State of Colorado,
Complainant,
v.
Robert A. Carvell,
Respondent.
September 11, 2000
Original Proceeding in Discipline before the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge
OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and
Hearing Board members, Corinne Martinez-Casias and Henry C.
Frey, both members of the bar.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY SUSPENSION
A sanctions hearing was held on March 8, 2000, before the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") and two
hearing board members, Corinne Martinez-Casias and Henry C.
Frey. James S. Sudler, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel
represented the People of the State of Colorado (the
"People"). The respondent Robert A. Carvell
("Carvell") failed to appear.
On September 17, 1999, the People filed the Complaint in this
matter. The Citation and Complaint were served upon Carvell
on September 20, 1999 by certified mail. Carvell personally
signed for receipt of the papers. Carvell failed to answer
the allegations in the Complaint and on December 23, 1999,
default entered against him. The facts set forth in the
Complaint were deemed admitted. Default was granted as to the
rule violations set forth in claims one, three and five,
which were deemed confessed, and denied as to the rule
violations set forth in claims two and four.
The People’s exhibits 1 through 8 were offered and
admitted into evidence. The PDJ and Hearing Board heard
testimony from the People’s witnesses Patrick
Averill and Marjorie Averill, reviewed the facts established
by the entry of default and the admitted exhibits, considered
argument of the People, and made the following findings of
fact which were established by clear and convincing evidence:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Robert A. Carvell has taken and subscribed the oath of
admission, was admitted to the bar of the Colorado Supreme
Court on September 20, 1960, and is registered upon the
official records as attorney registration number 03576.
Carvell is subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant
to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).
On March 6, 1998 Marjorie Averill and her son Patrick Averill
("Averill") met with Carvell concerning Patrick
Averill’s dissolution of marriage proceeding.
Averill retained Carvell to represent him in that proceeding.
Averill paid Carvell a retainer in the amount of $1,000. On
April 21, 1998, Carvell entered his appearance in the
dissolution of marriage action by filing a response to the
petition for dissolution and a motion for temporary orders.
Carvell set the temporary orders hearing and later attended
that hearing on behalf of his client. A day or two after the
hearing, Averill’s mother went to
Carvell’s office and picked up copies of the
pleadings. Thereafter, from late April, 1998 to August, 1998,
Carvell did not communicate with Averill. Despite repeated
attempts to contact him, Carvell returned none of the
Averills’ phone calls. On August 31, 1998, Marjorie
Averill went to Carvell’s office and discovered his
office had moved. Carvell had not advised the Averills that
he was changing office locations.
On September 16, 1998, Averill was finally successful in
contacting Carvell by telephone. Carvell made an appointment
with Averill at his new office location on September 17,
1998. Shortly thereafter, Carvell then cancelled the
appointment and rescheduled it for September 22, 1998, which
he also cancelled. Carvell rescheduled and subsequently
cancelled other appointments for September 23 and 24, 1998.
After September 24, 1998, Carvell did not schedule any
further appointments.
A final orders hearing was held on October 1, 1998 and
neither Carvell nor Averill appeared. Carvell never informed
Averill of the final orders hearing date. At the final orders
hearing, the court based its ruling and judgment regarding
the parties’ financial information solely on
Averill’s estranged wife’s information.
Although Averill had provided the necessary financial
information to Carvell, Carvell had not filed the financial
information with the court.
At the October 1, 1998 hearing, the court awarded
Averill’s wife sole custody of the
couple’s two minor children, spousal maintenance,
child support, the couple’s one operating vehicle,
the marital home and furnishings, and one-half of
Averill’s pension. Additionally, Averill was
ordered to pay the first and second mortgages on the marital
home. Carvell failed to notify Averill of the final orders in
the dissolution of marriage action. Averill has had no
communication with or from Carvell since the series of
appointment cancellations in September of 1998 prior to the
final orders hearing. Averill learned that the final orders
had entered on October 1, 1998 when a copy of the court order
was attached to his door approximately three weeks later.
Averill obtained successor counsel to protect his interests.
On October 30, 1998 successor counsel entered his appearance
on behalf of Averill and attempted to have the court vacate
the final orders based upon Carvell’s neglect. The
court denied the motion. Averill spent an additional $2,000
in an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the order of the
court.
On December 15, 1998, the Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel sent Carvell a request for investigation regarding
the charges in the Complaint. He never responded. Carvell has
failed to participate in these proceedings.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Complaint alleged that Carvell’s conduct
violated five separate provisions of The Colorado Rules of
Professional Conduct ("Colo. RPC"): claim one
alleged a violation of Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer); claim two
alleged a violation of Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (a lawyer’s
fee shall be reasonable); claim three alleged a violation of
Colo. RPC 1.4(a) (a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information), and claim four
alleged a violation of Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (upon termination of
representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client’s
interests). Claim five alleged that Carvell’s
failure to respond without good cause shown to a request for
investigation by Attorney Regulation Counsel constituted
grounds for discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5(d)1 and its
predecessor C.R.C.P. 241.6(7). The Order of Default entered
on December 23, 1999, granted default on the factual
allegations giving rise to each of the five claims, and found
violations of Colo. RPC 1.3(claim one), Colo. RPC 1.4(a)
(claim three) and C.R.C.P. 251.5(d)(claim five). The Order
denied default on the alleged rule violations of Colo. RPC
1.5(a) (claim two) and Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (claim four).
Carvell entered into a formal attorney-client relationship
with Averill, accepted $1,000 from Averill for
Carvell’s legal services, agreed to provide
specific professional services, provided some but not all of
the agreed upon services, failed to communicate with his
client regarding the dissolution of marriage action, failed
to appear at the final orders hearing and failed to advise
the client of the hearing date. Final orders were entered in
Averill’s dissolution case without his knowledge
and without Carvell being present to represent his interests.
When a lawyer enters into an attorney-client relationship
with another, an obligation to perform the agreed-upon
professional services arises. People v. Hotle, No. 99PDJ038
slip op. at 3, (Colo. PDJ November 16, 1999) 29 Colo. Law
107, 108 (January 2000). Carvell initially performed work for
his client, but thereafter neglected his client’s
matter at a critical stage of the proceedings. He failed to
provide his client’s financial affidavit to the
court, he failed to advise his client of the final orders
hearing date, and he failed to appear at the final orders
hearing in order to protect his client’s interests.
His neglect of Averill’s matter constitutes a
violation of Colo. RPC 1.3. His failure to keep appointments...
To continue reading
Request your trial