Opinions
Publication year | 2002 |
Pages | 133 |
Citation | Vol. 31 No. 5 Pg. 133 |
2002, May, Pg. 133. Opinions
Vol. 31, No. 5, Pg. 133
The Colorado Lawyer
May 2002
Vol. 31, No. 5 [Page 133]
May 2002
Vol. 31, No. 5 [Page 133]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Case Number: 01PDJ062
Complainant
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent
EDWARD J. POSSELIUS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
March 20, 2002
REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
Opinion issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge and
hearing board members Barbara Weil Gall and Victoria J
Koury,
both members of the bar.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS,
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.29(c) AND
(d) REQUIRED.
A sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15 was held on
February 28, 2002, before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
("PDJ") and two hearing board members, Barbara Weil
Gall and Victoria J. Koury, both members of the bar. James S.
Sudler, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel represented the
People of the State of Colorado (the "People").
Edward J. Posselius, the respondent, did not appear either in
person or by counsel.
The Complaint in this action was filed June 8, 2001.
Posselius did not file an Answer to the Complaint. On October
22, 2001, the People filed a Motion for Default. Posselius
did not respond. On December 3, 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 found that all
violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct alleged in
the Complaint were deemed established.
At the sanctions hearing, exhibits 1 through 3 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,
and made the following findings of fact which were
established by clear and convincing evidence.
I. Findings of Fact
Posselius has taken and subscribed to the oath of admission,
was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court on October 21,
1987 and is registered upon the official records of this
court, registration number 17010. Posselius 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, and were therefore
established by clear and convincing evidence. The order
entering default also granted default as to all alleged
violations of The Rules of Professional Conduct set forth
therein. The facts set forth in the Complaint reveal that
Posselius was retained by Mark Voting Systems, Inc. (the
"corporation") on June 26, 1999 to handle the
defense of a case filed against it by plaintiff Judith
Powelson in Boulder County District Court. The plaintiff in
that matter was a corporate officer and shareholder of the
corporation. The essence of her claim was that she had been
misled about her investment in the corporation. Posselius had
previously represented the corporation and he was personally
aware of many of the facts that Ms. Powelson alleged in her
complaint against the corporation.
There were several discussions between Posselius and his
client's representative designed to provide Posselius
with sufficient information to respond to the complaint and
engage in settlement discussions. Posselius requested and
received two extensions of time within which to respond to
the complaint. Notwithstanding the extensions of time to
respond, Posselius did not file a timely answer. Opposing
counsel sent formal written notice to Posselius informing him
that in the absence of an answer being filed within three
days, the plaintiff intended to seek the entry of default.
Being aware that the extensions of time had expired and that
the opposing party intended to seek the entry of default,
Posselius still did not file the answer he had agreed to file
on behalf of his client. Consequently, on November 16, 2000,
default judgment was entered against Posselius's
corporate client and a copy of the Order of Default Judgment
was mailed to Posselius.
During the period of time that opposing counsel was seeking
to obtain an answer from Posselius, Linda Rosa, the
representative of Posselius's corporate client, was
trying to contact Posselius to obtain information about the
status of the case. She made several telephone attempts to
contact him and in late October sent a certified letter to
Posselius requesting information. The letter was returned
unclaimed to Ms. Rosa on November 19. The same day, Ms. Rosa
went to Posselius's home, which also served as his
office, to seek information and meet with Posselius.
Posselius told Ms. Rosa there was still time to file a
response and that he would contact the president of the
corporate client within two days concerning the matter.
Posselius neither divulged nor discussed his failure to file
an answer with Ms. Rosa nor any other representative of his
client at that time or at any later time.
In January 2000, the corporation hired new counsel, and after
a hearing on the matter, the District Court vacated the
default judgment against the corporation, but awarded
attorney fees in favor of the plaintiff and against the
respondent and the corporation in the amount of $3,500.00,
plus costs of $375.00. The corporation incurred attorney fees
in the sum of $2,375.00 in order to get the default judgment
set aside.
The respondent has not participated in these proceedings and
he has not cooperated with the Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel in the investigation of this case.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The entry of default established the following violations of
the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct ("Colo.
RPC"): in claim one, Colo. RPC 1.3 (neglect of a legal
matter); in claim two, Colo. RPC 1.4(a) and (b)(failure to
communicate adequately and failure to explain a matter to the
client so that the client can make informed decisions
regarding the representation); and in claim three, grounds
for discipline have been established pursuant to C.R.C.P.
251.5(d) (failure to respond without good cause to the
Regulation Counsel), and 251.10 (failure to respond to the
allegations in a request for investigation).
The facts established by the Complaint and the entry of
default show that Posselius neglected the matter entrusted to
him by his client, that he failed to communicate with his
client and failed to keep them accurately informed of the
status of the case. His misconduct caused serious injury,
which, without his assistance, was mitigated by the actions
of others.
Moreover, when confronted with his misconduct by the Office
of Attorney Regulation Counsel, Posselius chose to ignore his
mandatory obligation to cooperate in the investigation of the
matter and failed to participate in these proceedings. See
C.R.C.P. 251.5(d). Posselius's misconduct in connection
with his client's case and his misconduct in connection
with the investigation of this disciplinary matter reflect
adversely upon his fitness to practice law.
III. SANCTION/IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE
The misconduct engaged in by Posselius amounted to neglect
and lack of communication with his client. The ABA...
To continue reading
Request your trial