Opinions
Publication year | 2002 |
Pages | 167 |
2002, January, Pg. 167. Opinions
Vol. 31, No. 1, Pg. 77
The Colorado Lawyer
January 2002
Vol. 31, No. 1 [Page 167]
January 2002
Vol. 31, No. 1 [Page 167]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Case Number: 01PDJ013
Complainant
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent
PHYLLIS M. AIN.
October 29, 2001
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDING
DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and
Hearing Board members, Dianne K. Barry and Sherry A. Caloia,
both members of the bar.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
A sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15 was held on
August 28, 2001, before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
("PDJ") and two hearing board members, Dianne K.
Barry and Sherry A. Caloia, both members of the bar. James C.
Coyle, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel represented the
People of the State of Colorado (the "People").
Phyllis M. Ain ("Ain"), the respondent, did not
appear either in person or by counsel.
The Complaint in this action was filed February 12, 2001. Ain
did not file an Answer to the Complaint. On April 13, 2001
the People filed a Motion for Default. Ain did not respond.
On June 6, 2001 the PDJ issued an Order granting default,
stating that all factual allegations set forth in the
Complaint were deemed admitted pursuant to C.R.C.P.
251.15(b). The default Order also granted default on certain
violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct ("Colo.
RPC") alleged in the Complaint which were deemed
admitted, e.g., People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo.
1987), and denied default on certain other violations, which
were subsequently dismissed by Order dated July 5, 2001.1
At the sanctions hearing, the People presented evidence from
Dr. Robert E. Baker. Exhibits 1 through 5 were offered by the
People and admitted into evidence. The PDJ and Hearing Board
considered the People's argument, the facts established
by the entry of default, the exhibits admitted, assessed the
testimony of the witness and made the following findings of
fact which were established by clear and convincing evidence.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Ain has taken and subscribed to the oath of admission, was
admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court on October 27, 1987
and is registered upon the official records of this court,
registration number 17112. Ain is subject to the jurisdiction
of this court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).
All factual allegations set forth in the Complaint were
deemed admitted by the entry of default. The facts set forth
therein are therefore established by clear and convincing
evidence. See Complaint attached hereto as exhibit 1. The
Order entering default also granted default as to the
remaining violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Brown Matter
Sue Brown ("Brown") hired Ain to represent her in a
potential discrimination/wrongful termination action against
Brown's employer. After initially filing a claim on
Brown's behalf, Ain failed to specify Brown's claims
for relief for several months despite opposing counsel's
requests that she do so; she failed to respond to opposing
counsel's correspondence; she failed to timely and
adequately provide discovery; she missed scheduled meetings
with the client, and she failed to comply with the
court's order requiring her to formally set forth
Brown's claims. Consequently, Ain failed to act with
reasonable diligence and promptness and neglected Brown's
matter in violation of Colo. RPC 1.3 (an attorney shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to that attorney).
Ain violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c)(an attorney shall not knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) by
failing to comply with the court's order directing her to
file a complaint that formally stated her client's claims
against the various defendants. Ain failed to keep Brown
informed about the status of the matter in violation of Colo.
RPC 1.4(a)(an attorney shall keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply
with reasonable requests for information). Ain failed to make
reasonable efforts to expedite the client's matter in
violation of Colo. RPC 3.2(an attorney shall make reasonable
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of a client). Ain knowingly misrepresented to her client that
she was proceeding adequately in the case when in fact she
was not. Such conduct is a violation of Colo. RPC
8.4(c)(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation). After withdrawing as
Brown's attorney, Ain failed to return Brown's papers
upon request in violation of Colo. RPC 1.16(d)(upon
termination of representation, taking steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests,
and refunding any advance payment of any fee not earned).
The Baker Matter
Dr. and Mrs. Baker (the "Bakers") retained Ain in
August 1996, to represent them in a dispute over an
automobile service contract with an automobile manufacturer.
They paid Ain a $500 cost retainer and later paid her an
additional $600. Ain provided incompetent advice to the
Bakers with regard to the statute of limitations applicable
to their claim in violation of Colo. RPC 1.1(an attorney
shall provide competent representation to a client). Ain
engaged in numerous acts of neglect in violation of Colo. RPC
1.3(neglect of a legal matter): she filed a complaint on
behalf of the Bakers after the statute of limitations had
expired; she tendered a check for filing costs drawn on her
operating account with insufficient funds on deposit to cover
the check; she failed to respond to opposing counsel's
correspondence when advised of the legal deficiencies in the
case; she delayed the case by failing to produce the
clients' vehicle for inspection despite being requested
to do so numerous times by defense counsel; she failed to
respond to discovery requests; she neglected to interview
certain essential witnesses for over sixteen months; she
failed to draft a trial management order; she failed to
obtain an expert opinion, and she failed to prepare the
matter for trial.
Ain violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(an attorney shall keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information) by
repeatedly failing to respond to the Bakers' requests for
information. Ain failed to communicate the client's
rejection of the settlement offer to the defendant
manufacturer; she failed to advise the clients of opposing
counsel's correspondence regarding deficiencies in the
lawsuit and affirmative defenses; she failed to advise the
Bakers of the defendants' dispositive motions and
Ain's failure to timely respond to the motions; she
failed to inform the Bakers of the court's ruling on the
motions and that the court dismissed their case, and she
failed to inform them of the judgment against herself and her
clients jointly and severally in the amount of $11,438.60 for
attorney fees and $215.27 in costs.
Ain violated Colo. RPC 1.15(a)(an attorney shall hold
clients' property separate from the attorney's own
property) by placing the Bakers' $500 cost retainer in
her operating account and commingling their funds with her
own funds. Ain violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c)(engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by
misrepresenting to the court that she could not file a timely
response to a summary judgment motion due to the client's
failure to provide her with an affidavit when in fact she had
never requested that the Bakers prepare an affidavit.
Ain's repeated misrepresentations to the Bakers regarding
the status of the case constitutes additional violations of
Colo. RPC 8.4(c).
Ain violated Colo. RPC 3.2 (an attorney shall make reasonable
efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests
of a client) by failing to produce the Bakers' vehicle
for inspection which precipitated delay in the case, and
failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
Ain knowingly disobeyed a court order in violation of Colo.
RPC 3.4(c)(an attorney shall not knowingly disobey an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal) by failing to
appear for her rule 69 deposition when ordered to do so by
the court. Ain violated Colo. RPC 1.16(d)(an attorney shall,
upon termination of representation, take steps to the extent
reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests)
by failing to return the Bakers' file when requested.
The Page/Densmore Matter
Nancy Page and her son, Case Densmore, hired Ain in late 1998
to represent Densmore regarding a dissolution of his
marriage. Densmore paid Ain a $500 retainer. Ain was aware
that Densmore was psychologically vulnerable. Densmore had
recently attempted suicide as a result of the failed
marriage. Ain incorrectly informed Densmore that the
dissolution proceeding would take only forty-five days due to
the short duration of the marriage. Such advice was
incompetent and a violation of Colo. RPC 1.1 (an attorney
shall provide competent representation to a client). Ain
violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(an attorney shall keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information) by
repeatedly failing to return Densmore's phone calls and
failing to communicate with Densmore from late 1998 to late
summer 1999. Indeed, after her initial meeting with Densmore
in which she stated that the matter would be resolved within
forty-five days, Ain failed to take any further legal action
on the case. Such Failure to act with reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial