Opinions
Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
Citation | Vol. 32 No. 4 Pg. 127 |
Pages | 127 |
Publication year | 2003 |
2003, April, Pg. 127. Opinions
Vol. 32, No. 4, Pg. 127
The Colorado Lawyer
April 2003
Vol. 32, No. 4 [Page 127]
April 2003
Vol. 32, No. 4 [Page 127]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Opinions
Case Number: 02PDJ058
Complainant
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent
MARK JOSEPH FISCHER.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
February 5, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Opinion by a Hearing Board consisting of the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge, Roger L. Keithley, and Hearing Board
Members Sherry A. Caloia, a member of the bar, and Larry A.
Daveline, a representative of the public.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
A trial pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18(d) was held on November
12, 2002, before a Hearing Board consisting of the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") and two Hearing Board
Members, Sherry A. Caloia, a member of the bar, and Larry A.
Daveline, a representative of the public. Kim E. Ikeler,
Assistant Regulation Counsel, represented the People of the
State of Colorado (the "People"). Ralph A. Cantafio
represented the respondent, Mark J. Fischer
("Fischer") who was also present.
On September 3, 2002, the People moved for Judgment on the
Pleadings with regard to claims three four, five, and six
alleged in the Complaint. On October 1, 2002, Fischer filed a
responsive pleading, confessing the motion as to claims four,
five, and six. The PDJ granted the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings by Order dated October 3, 2002, as to claims four,
five, and six.
On September 13, 2002, the People moved for Summary Judgment
as to claims one and two of the Complaint. On October 1,
2002, Fischer filed a responsive pleading confessing the
motion as to these claims. On October 3, 2002, the PDJ
granted the motion, establishing a violation of claims one
and two. The People withdrew claim three.
At the trial on November 12, 2002, the following witnesses
testified on behalf of Fischer: Dan Ellingson, Bryon Rickman,
Michael A. O'Hara, and Nancy Muhme. Judge Richard P.
Doucette testified by telephone. Fischer testified on his own
behalf. Fischer offered and the PDJ admitted the following
exhibits into evidence: exhibits A, B, C,
C-1, D, E, F, G, H, I-1, I-2, J, K, L, M, and N. The Hearing
Board considered the People's argument and Fischer's
argument in mitigation, the evidence presented by Fischer in
mitigation, Fischer's Trial Brief filed November 6, 2002,
the Stipulation of Facts set forth in the Trial Management
Order filed October 25, 2002, and made the following findings
of fact which were established by clear and convincing
evidence.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
On November 6, 2002, the People and Fischer submitted the
following Stipulation of Facts in this proceeding. The
Stipulated Facts are therefore findings of fact for purposes
of this Opinion and Order:
1. Mr. Fischer has taken and subscribed the oath of
admission, was admitted to the bar of this court on May 17,
1976, and is registered upon the official records of this
court, registration no. 07161. He is subject to the
jurisdiction of this court in these disciplinary proceedings.
Mr. Fischer's registered business address is P.O. Drawer
490, Hayden, Colorado 81639.
2. This case arises out of a divorce between Gerald Hallman
("Mr. Hallman") and Fran McKinney ("Ms.
McKinney"). Melanie Douglas, Esq. represented Mr.
Hallman and Mr. Fischer represented Ms. McKinney. The
principal asset of the marriage was a piece of real property
located near Hayden, Colorado, known as 42855 McGuire Lane
(the "property"). The property was unimproved land,
except for a mobile home located on it.
3. In September 2001, Mr. Hallman and Ms. McKinney entered
into a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (the
"Separation Agreement"). The Separation Agreement,
paragraph 3, provided that Ms. McKinney was to sell the land
and the mobile home. Out of the closing proceeds, Ms.
McKinney agreed to pay a number of debts specifically
enumerated in paragraph 3 of the Separation Agreement. These
debts included three liens secured by the land, personal
debts owed by Ms. McKinney and Mr. Hallman, a $10,000 tax
obligation, $36,000 due on the purchase price of the mobile
home, with $10,000 to be distributed to Mr. Hallman. The
Separation Agreement, paragraph 3, further provided that Ms.
McKinney would be responsible for all costs of closing,
attorney fees, title fees and other such costs. Only after
all these debts were paid, Ms. McKinney was entitled to
receive net proceeds, if any.
4. The same paragraph of the Separation Agreement
specifically provided that payment of the debts would be made
either directly out of the closing proceeds or, if not paid
at closing, out of proceeds deposited in Mr. Fischer's
trust account.
5. The Separation Agreement was made an Order of court
pursuant to a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage entered
September 18, 2001 (hereinafter the "Court Order").
The Court Order was signed by the Honorable Richard P.
Doucette, the Chief Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial
District, of which Routt County is a part. In the Court
Order, Judge Doucette specifically Ordered: "[e]ach
party shall perform all of the applicable provisions of the
Separation Agreement. . . ."
6. Ms. McKinney encountered difficulties in selling the
property. Mr. Hallman neglected to obtain certain permits
related to the mobile home and failed to register the mobile
home with the county. As a result, a certificate of occupancy
had never been issued for the mobile home. Also certain taxes
had not been paid. These problems in turn made it difficult
for a prospective buyer to find financing to purchase the
real property.
7. Ultimately, Mr. Fischer located a private investor to
finance $70,000 of the purchase price of the real property
and Ms. McKinney agreed to take back a secured promissory
note for $23,000. The promissory note was due after the
initial closing of the sale of the property. Because of this,
there were two closings, the first in early November 2001 and
the second in December 2001.
8. Neither Mr. Hallman nor his attorney, Ms. Douglas,
attended either of the closings. However, in a letter to Mr.
Fischer in October 2001, prior to the first closing, Ms.
Douglas confirmed her understanding that Mr. Fischer would be
disbursing $10,000 to Mr. Hallman out of the proceeds of the
sale held in Mr. Fischer's trust account.
9. After the first closing, Mr. Fischer on November 6, 2001,
wrote to Ms. Douglas. He stated that the liens on the
property had been paid out of the closing proceeds. Mr.
Fischer stated that, from the remaining funds, he had paid
certain of Ms. McKinney's personal debts and paid $4,000
to himself for fees accrued in the divorce proceedings. Mr.
Fischer explained that, because Ms. McKinney had taken the
$23,000 promissory note in lieu of full payment of the
purchase price, '[t]he other debts that Franni [Ms.
McKinney] is obligated to pay under the terms of the
Separation Agreement will be dealt with when the $23,000
payment is made." Mr. Fischer neglected to inform Ms.
Douglas that, from the proceeds available at the first
closing, Mr. Fischer had transferred $28,000 to an escrow
account for Ms. McKinney's benefit and had paid her an
additional $9,616.10.1 With regard to the $10,000 payment due
to Mr. Hallman, Mr. Fischer stated:
I was instructed not to pay Jerry [Mr. Hallman] any money at
this time. Franni [Ms. McKinney] had to discount the property
by at least $5,000 because of the inadequate and unapproved
sewer system. At this time I am uncertain if Franni [Ms.
McKinney] will instruct me to pay $5,000 to Jerry [Mr.
Hallman] out of the proceeds of the second deed of trust when
it is paid.
10. In making his determination to pay certain debts, and not
others, to disburse amounts to Ms. McKinney, and to pay
himself $4,000 for accrued fees, Mr. Fischer claims to have
acted at the direction of his client, Ms. McKinney. Although
Mr. Fischer was aware, e.g., of Mr. Hallman's claim to
$10,000 of the proceeds, Mr. Fischer did not seek the
court's direction concerning disbursement of the proceeds
of the first closing; nor did Mr. Fischer place any portion
of the proceeds in escrow or retain any portion in his trust
account.
11. Mr. Fischer claims that, on November 30, 2001, before the
second closing, his paralegal, Nancy Muhme, telephoned
Melanie Douglas and left a message that Ms. McKinney had
instructed Mr. Fischer not to pay any of the sale proceeds to
Mr. Hallman. Ms. Douglas denies receiving this message.
12. Despite having received an additional $23,000 at the
second closing in December 2001, Mr. Fischer made no
provision for paying Mr. Hallman. Nor did Mr. Fischer retain
in his trust account the disputed funds. Mr. Fischer did not
seek the direction of the Routt County District Court as to
resolution with disputes concerning these monies, but instead
at the direction of his client disbursed all of the funds
from the second closing, including to himself and Ms.
McKinney.
13. In early December 2001, Ms. Douglas on behalf of Mr.
Hallman, filed a Motion for Release of Money Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement. Ms. McKinney filed a Response to the
same. After some procedural delays, another Routt County
District Court Acting Judge, the Honorable James Herbert
Garrecht, entered an Order setting the matter for a Hearing
on March 11, 2002. Judge Garrecht at that time also Ordered
Mr. Fischer to provide an accounting.
14. Mr. Fischer filed his Accounting to Court on February 19
2002. Mr. Fischer attached to the Accounting to Court an
exhibit showing that, at the first and second...
To continue reading
Request your trial