Disciplinary Opinions

• Publication year: 2004
• Pages: 149
• Citation: Vol. 33 No. 9 Pg. 149

33 Colo.Law. 143 Colorado Lawyer 2004.

2004, September, Pg. 149. Disciplinary Opinions

Vol. 33, No. 9, Pg. 143

The Colorado Lawyer
September 2004
Vol. 33, No. 9 [Page 149]

From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Disciplinary 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, William R Lucero, 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 153 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: 03PDJ066

Complainant:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondent:

WARD F. LINDEMANN.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

June 2, 2004

REPORT, DECISION, AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge, William R. Lucero, and Hearing Board members Helen R. Stone and Paul J. Willumstad, both members of the bar, issue the following opinion.

SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED

I. BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2003, the People of the State of Colorado ("People"/ "Petitioner") filed a complaint in this matter and sent the Citation and Complaint to Ward F. Lindemann ("Lindemann"/"Respondent") via regular and certified mail. On October 20, 2003, the People filed Proof of Service. The Proof of Service shows that the Citation and the Complaint were sent to Lindemann's registered business address (there are no other known addresses for Lindemann) and that the certified copy of the Complaint was delivered on September 19, 2003, at 1:28 p.m. The regular mail copy of the Complaint was not returned. Lindemann failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

The claims against Lindemann1 grew out of complaints from three different clients for whom it was alleged Respondent failed to deliver contracted services in a timely and satisfactory manner, failed to return calls and keep his clients informed of the status of their cases, and engaged in dishonest conduct by knowingly delaying the return of or converting property belonging to clients.

In the first matter, Gregory, the Complaint alleged that Lindemann failed to provide legal services for an action against Gregory's former husband for which Lindemann had accepted a retainer. After the lapse of many months, when it became apparent that Lindemann either would or could not deliver the contracted services, he was no longer employed and unable to refund to Gregory the retainer.

In the second matter, Mahan, Lindemann represented Raymond Mayhan in a marriage dissolution action in which the final orders were entered on December 6, 2000. Subsequently Mr. Mahan and his former wife litigated disputes arising out of court orders connected with the divorce, which included a court-ordered payment by Mahan to his ex-wife and the processing of a domestic relations order ("DRO") related to Mrs. Mahan's interest in a public school retirement system. Lindemann did not prepare and file the DRO until December 2001. He filed the order without opposing counsel's signature and misrepresented the circumstances under which the court could enter the order. Lindemann also did not return to his client until June 2003 a pearl necklace that opposing counsel provided in April or May 2002 as part of the property distribution from the divorce action.

In the third matter, Andreen hired Lindemann to represent him when he was notified by a County Child Support Enforcement Unit that his court-ordered child payment was still owing. According to the client, the payment was made but not credited. Andreen gave Lindemann a retainer. Lindemann failed to notify Andreen of a scheduled hearing and the legal consequences of Andreen's failure to appear at the hearing. Lindemann also failed to notify Andreen that Lindemann had withdrawn opposition to an amount in arrears.

On November 10, 2003, the People moved for default on the claims set forth in the complaint. The People sent a copy of the Motion for Default to Lindemann at his registered business address via certified mail. Lindemann did not respond.

On December 19, 2003, then Presiding Disciplinary Judge Roger L. Keithley entered an order of default on the Complaint, a copy of which was sent to Lindemann by first class mail at his registered business address. All factual allegations set forth in the Complaint are deemed admitted by the entry of default pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) and are therefore established by clear and convincing evidence. E.g. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987). See also the Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

On January 2, 2003, the People sent a Confirmation of Sanctions hearing to Lindemann by certified and regular mail at his business address. The confirmation stated that the sanctions hearing was scheduled for April 6, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. for one- half day.

A sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) was held on April 6, 2004, before the hearing board. James C. Coyle, Deputy Regulation Counsel, represented the People. Lindemann did not appear in person or by counsel.

II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Hearing Board considered the People's argument, the facts established by the entry of default, and three exhibits offered by the People and admitted into evidence: the Disciplinary Report of Investigation of this matter, a true copy of the Respondent's attorney registration, and a letter addressed to the Respondent at the address listed with his attorney registration confirming the date and place of the sanctions hearing. Based upon the forgoing the Hearing Board made the following findings and conclusions, which were established by clear and convincing evidence.

Ward F. Lindemann has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of...