Opinions
Publication year | 2003 |
Pages | 131 |
2003, June, Pg. 131. Opinions
131
The Colorado Lawyer
June 2003
Vol. 32, No. 6 [Page 131]
June 2003
Vol. 32, No. 6 [Page 131]
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. 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).
The Colorado Lawyer publishes 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. For space purposes, accompanying Exhibits may not be printed.
These Opinions may be appealed in accordance with C.R.C.P 251.27.
The full-text Opinions, along with their summaries, are available on the CBA home page at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/index.htm. See page 156 for details.Opinions, including Exhibits, and summaries are also available on LexisNexisTM at http://www.lexis.com/research by clicking on States LegalU.S./Colorado/Cases and Court Rules/By Court/Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions.
The Colorado Lawyer publishes 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. For space purposes, accompanying Exhibits may not be printed.
These Opinions may be appealed in accordance with C.R.C.P 251.27.
The full-text Opinions, along with their summaries, are available on the CBA home page at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/index.htm. See page 156 for details.Opinions, including Exhibits, and summaries are also available on LexisNexisTM at http://www.lexis.com/research by clicking on States LegalU.S./Colorado/Cases and Court Rules/By Court/Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions.
Case Number: 02PDJ088
Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
Respondent:
DAVID BURTON APKER
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
April 7, 2003
REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
Opinion by Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley and
Hearing Board Members Edwin S. Kahn and David A. Helmer both
members of the bar.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
A sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15 was held on
March 6, 2003, before the Hearing Board consisting of the
Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") Roger L.
Keithley and two hearing board members, David A. Helmer and
Edwin S. Kahn, both members of the bar. Terry Bernuth,
Assistant Regulation Counsel, represented the People of the
State of Colorado (the "People"). Respondent David
Burton Apker ("Apker") did not appear either in
person or by counsel.
The People filed a Complaint in this matter on Oct. 18, 2002.
The Citation and Complaint were sent via regular and
certified mail to Apker on the same date to Apker's two
registered addresses. The People filed a Proof of Service on
Oct. 23, 2002, which indicates that Apker signed for receipt
of the Citation and Complaint at his registered business
address. Apker failed to file an Answer or otherwise respond
to the Complaint.
On Dec. 12, 2002, the People moved for default on the claims
set forth in the Complaint. On Jan. 8, 2003, the PDJ granted
the motion for default as to the facts set forth in the
Complaint, which were deemed admitted, and as to the
violation of the claims set forth in the Complaint, which
were deemed established.
This is a reciprocal discipline matter from the State of
Arizona brought pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.21. The Complaint in
this action gave notice to Apker that the Office of Attorney
Regulation Counsel would seek substantially different
discipline before the Colorado Supreme Court than that
imposed in the State of Arizona. See C.R.C.P. 251.21(d).
At the sanctions hearing, exhibits 1 through 3 were offered
by the People and admitted into evidence. The Hearing Board
considered the People's argument, the facts and
violations 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
David Burton Apker has taken and subscribed to the oath of
admission, was admitted to the bar of the Colorado Supreme
Court on May 17, 1977 and is registered upon the official
records of this court, attorney registration number 08105.
Apker is subject to the jurisdiction of this court pursuant
to C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).
On October 18, 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court entered an
Order suspending Apker from the practice of law in that state
for a period of six months and one day. Under Arizona law, a
suspension for a period of time greater than six months
requires a formal reinstatement proceeding. A copy of the
Order of Suspension is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A."
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
IMPOSITION OF SANCTION
The Complaint in this action seeks imposition of discipline
under the reciprocal discipline provisions of C.R.C.P.
251.21. Pursuant to subsection (d) of that Rule, the Office
of Attorney Regulation Counsel seeks substantially different
discipline than that imposed by Arizona. C.R.C.P. 251.21 (d)
provides that the same discipline imposed in the foreign
jurisdiction shall be imposed in Colorado unless certain
exceptions exist. See People v. Calder, 897 P.2d 831, 832
(1995).
C.R.C.P. 251.21(d) provides in part:
At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the
Hearing Board shall issue a decision imposing the same
discipline as was imposed by the foreign jurisdiction, unless
it is determined by the Hearing Board that:
(1) The procedure followed in the foreign jurisdiction did
not comport with requirements of due process of law;
(2) The proof upon which the foreign jurisdiction based its
determination of misconduct is so infirm that the Hearing
Board cannot, consistent with its duty, accept as final the
determination of the foreign jurisdiction;
(3) The imposition by the Hearing Board of the same
discipline as was imposed in the foreign jurisdiction would
result in grave injustice; or
(4) The misconduct proved warrants that a substantially
different form of discipline be imposed by the Hearing Board.
A final adjudication in another jurisdiction of attorney
misconduct constituting grounds for discipline is, for
purposes of attorney disciplinary proceedings in Colorado,
conclusively established. See C.R.C.P. 251.21(a). The
suspension order issued by the Arizona Supreme Court is such
a final order.
In order to determine if any of the four factors set forth in
C.R.C.P. 251.21(d) are satisfied, the Hearing Board must
consider the evidence before it. In this default proceeding,
the evidence before the Hearing Board are the findings made
by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The Arizona Supreme Court found that Apker failed to notify
and deliver trust funds that his client had paid to him.
Apker's conduct violated the Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct, ER 1.15(b)(receipt of third party
funds), 8.4(b)(committing a criminal act that reflects
adversely on the lawyer), ER 8.4(d)(engaging in conduct that
is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and SCR43(d)
(trust account/ guideline authority).
The Arizona Supreme Court also found that Apker, in
connection with his failure to deliver funds, committed
theft, under A.R.S. § 13-1802.A.2. Pursuant to that statute,
a person commits theft:
[I]f, without lawful authority, the person knowingly
"[c]onverts for an unauthorized term or use services of
property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in
the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term
or use."
Theft by an attorney, as theft is defined under Arizona law,
constitutes knowing conversion of client property under
Colorado law. The knowing conversion of client property
almost invariably results in disbarment under Colorado law.
See People v. Rishel, 50 P.3d 938 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2002)
(holding that the theft of funds warrants the sanction of
disbarment, regardless of whether the funds belonged to a
third party or to a client). See also People v. Varallo, 9913
P.2d 1 (Colo. 1996) (knowing conversion of the property of a
client without authority from the client results in
disbarment); People v. Coyne, 913 P.2d 12 (Colo.
1996)(holding that attorney's personal use of funds held
in trust for clients warranted disbarment).
Under the analysis set forth in People v. Lujan, 890 P.2d 109
(Colo. 1995), the mitigation necessary to reduce the
presumptive sanction of disbarment for knowing conversion to
some lesser sanction has to be "extraordinary and
tragic." Since Apker neither responded to the charges
against him nor appeared at this proceeding, no mitigation
has been presented.
Accordingly, the Hearing Board concludes that the misconduct
found by the Arizona Supreme Court warrants a substantially
different form of discipline under Colorado law than that
imposed under the law of Arizona. See C.R.C.P. 251.21(d)(4).
III. ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED:
1. DAVID BURTON APKER, attorney registration number 08105 is
disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Colorado,
effective thirty-one days from the date of this Order, and
his name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys
licensed to practice law in this state;
2. Apker is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
The People shall submit a Statement of Costs within ten (10)
days of the date of this Order. Respondent shall have five
(5) days thereafter to submit a response thereto.
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
______________
IN THE MATTER OF A
SUSPENDED MEMBER OF THE Comm. No. 99-2298
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA,
DAVID B. APKER,
Attorney No. 004741 Disciplinary Commission Report
Respondent.
This matter was...
To continue reading
Request your trial