Disciplinary Opinions

• Publication year: 2005
• Pages: 141

34 Colo.Law. 141 Colorado Bar Journal 2005.

2005, April, Pg. 141. Disciplinary Opinions

---

141

Vol. 34, No. 4, Pg. 141

The Colorado Lawyer
April 2005
Vol. 34, No. 4 [Page 141]

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). These Opinions may be appealed in accordance with C.R.C.P. 251.27

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, Exhibits, Complaints, and Amended Complaints may not be printed.

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 154 for details. Opinions, including Exhibits, Complaints, and Amended Complaints and summaries, are also available at the Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge website: http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/ pdj.htm; and 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: 03PDJ094
(consolidated with 03PDJ106, 04PDJ005, and 04PDJ070)

Complainant:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondent:

TAMATHA ANN BLAS.

January 10, 2005

REPORT, DECISION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTION

On November 10, 2004, a Hearing Board consisting of E. Steven Ezell and Sisto J. Mazza, both members of the bar and William R. Lucero, Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") conducted a sanctions hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b). Kim E. Ikeler appeared on behalf of the People, Tamatha Ann Blasé, Respondent, was not present. The Hearing Board issues the following opinion:

SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED

Respondent defaulted on a complaint charging that she engaged in a pattern of neglect, made misrepresentations to clients, failed to communicate with clients, misappropriated their funds, and abandoned her practice without protecting them. Under the ABA Standards and Colorado Supreme Court cases, disbarment is the presumptive sanction for such conduct when the client is harmed. Should this Court impose a lesser sanction than disbarment if Respondent has no prior discipline?

Upon consideration of the evidence, the Hearing Board finds that the facts and circumstances of this case support the presumptive sanction, disbarment.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

This action arises out of four separate complaints. On November 20, 2003, the People initiated 03PDJ094, concerning Respondent's alleged misconduct on five client matters (the Boyd, Bertrand, Smith, White, and Sylvester matters). The People sent the Citation and Complaint to Respondent via regular and certified mail. The certified mailing was not claimed. Respondent did not file an answer.

On December 17, 2003, the People initiated 03PDJ106, concerning Respondent's alleged misconduct on a single client matter (the Coventry Farms matter). The People sent the Citation and Complaint to Respondent via regular and certified mail. The certified mailing was not claimed. Respondent did not file an answer.

On January 21, 2004, the People initiated 04PDJ005, concerning Respondent's alleged misconduct on two client matters (the McCormick and Salgado matters). The People sent the Citation and Complaint to Respondent via regular and certified mail. The certified mailing was not claimed. Respondent did not file an answer.

On June 28, 2004, the People initiated 04PDJ070, concerning Respondent's alleged misconduct on two client matters (the Buckley and West matters). The People sent the Citation and Complaint to Respondent via regular and certified mail. Someone other than Respondent accepted the certified mailing. Respondent did not file an answer.

On July 27, 2004, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) and C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-14, the PDJ entered default judgment in 03PDJ094, 03PDJ106, and 04PDJ070. On October 15, 2004, the PDJ issued an order entering default judgment in 04PDJ070 and consolidating the four actions into the present case. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("OARC") sent a copy of this order, containing notice of the sanctions hearing, to Respondent via first class mail.

By the entry of default, all factual allegations and rule violations set forth in the Complaint are deemed admitted, and are therefore established by clear and convincing evidence. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341, 347 (Colo. 1987); see also Complaints, attached to this Opinion as Exhibits A. The underlying facts of this case are detailed in the Complaints and incorporated in this Opinion by reference. On the date of the sanctions hearing, Respondent failed to appear before the Hearing Board and offer evidence in mitigation. The People presented no additional evidence.

II. FINDINGS AND VIOLATIONS

The Hearing Board considered the facts and violations established by the entry of default, as well as the People's argument for disbarment. Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Board makes the following findings and conclusions:

Respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this Court on October 21, 1993, and is registered upon the official records of this Court (registration no. 23107). She is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings. C.R.C.P. 251.1(b).

In the Boyd matter, Mr. and Mrs. Boyd hired Respondent to represent them in a dispute over their home. When the opposing party filed a quiet title action against them, Respondent did file an answer and counterclaim on their behalf. After that, however, Respondent failed to provide disclosures, failed to participate in the case management order, failed to appear at status conferences, failed to comply with court orders, and failed to file critical motions.

As a result of Respondent's neglect, the trial court entered a default judgment against the Boyds, quieting title to the property in favor of the opposing party and evicting the Boyds from their home. In addition, the court entered a monetary judgment of nearly $40,000 against them. Respondent filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, but this motion was denied for failure to show good cause.

Despite her assurances to the Boyds, Respondent did not file an appeal and did not refer their case to another attorney. In fact, the Boyds never spoke with Respondent again, although they made daily attempts to contact her for at least a month and a half. Ultimately, the Boyds were forced to hire alternate counsel, who had to act quickly to preserve their appeal rights. Respondent has failed to return the Boyds' files and papers, and she has kept the unearned portion of their retainer.

In the Bertrand matter, Ms. Bertrand hired Respondent to represent her in a challenge to the ownership of her horse. Respondent advised Ms. Bertrand to wait for the opposing party to take action, and to contact her immediately if anything happened. When Ms. Bertrand received a demand letter threatening criminal theft charges and imposing an imminent deadline, she repeatedly attempted to contact Respondent. Respondent never answered Ms Bertrand's urgent messages or ever communicated with her again. Respondent retained new counsel, who immediately filed a lawsuit on her behalf and eventually succeeded in gaining full ownership of the horse for Ms. Bertrand.

In the Smith matter, Ms. Smith hired Respondent to initiate and complete her divorce. Respondent took no action other than filing the petition for dissolution and a certification regarding parenting classes. She did not serve Mr. Smith, although he eventually filed a waiver of service. When the trial court issued a notice of dismissal for failure to prosecute, Respondent assured Ms. Smith that she would contact the court. She did nothing and, as a result, the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Thereafter, Respondent failed to assist Ms. Smith in moving forward with the divorce. After Ms. Smith retained a new attorney, she requested an accounting as well as the return of the unearned portion of her retainer. Respondent did not reply.

In the White matter, Mr. and Mrs. White hired Respondent when their horse was injured at a stable. Nearly one month after they agreed to issue a demand letter, Respondent sent the Whites a poorly written draft demand letter for their review. Thereafter, the Whites explicitly instructed Respondent to allow them to approve the final draft. They never received a copy of the final product, and had difficulty reaching Respondent. Respondent communicated with the Whites two more times, but then ceased all contact. Mr. White left her numerous messages via phone and fax. Eventually, he discovered that her voice mail was full and that her phone had been disconnected.

In the Sylvester matter, Ms. Sylvester hired Respondent to collect payment of approximately $40,000 for services that...