Disciplinary Opinions
Publication year | 2005 |
Pages | 115 |
Citation | Vol. 34 No. 2 Pg. 115 |
2005, February, Pg. 115. Disciplinary Opinions
Vol. 34, No. 2, Pg. 115
The Colorado Lawyer
February 2005
Vol. 34, No. 2 [Page 115]
February 2005
Vol. 34, No. 2 [Page 115]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Disciplinary Opinions
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 142 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: 03PDJ093
Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent:
ROBERT MELVIN HOHERTZ.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
October 13, 2004
DECISION RE: SANCTIONS
PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.15(b)
PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.15(b)
The Hearing Board, consisting of Melinda M. Harper, CPA,
Henry C. Frey, a member of the bar, and Presiding
Disciplinary Judge, William R. Lucero, conducted a sanctions
hearing in this matter on August 16, 2004. Fredrick J. Kraus
appeared on behalf of the People of the State of Colorado
("Complainant") and tendered a proposed
stipulation. Respondent, Robert Melvin Hohertz
("Respondent"), pro se, did not appear. After
reviewing the stipulation and Respondent's disciplinary
history, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ")
rejected the stipulation. Because the Hearing Board was
concerned that Respondent may have failed to appear at the
August 16, 2004 hearing due to believing the stipulation
would be accepted, it continued the matter until September 7,
2004 to give Respondent the opportunity to appear. After
sending notice to Respondent of the continuance and giving
him the opportunity to appear, the Hearing Board reconvened
the sanctions hearing on September 7, 2004. Fredrick J. Kraus
appeared on behalf of Complainant. Respondent did not appear.
The Hearing Board issues the following opinion.
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Complainant charged Robert M. Hohertz, Respondent, with
neglecting several client matters entrusted to him, violating
a client confidence, failing to return fees and other client
property after termination, and deceiving a client by saying
he had taken steps to correct an error when he had not done
so. Respondent did not answer the Complaint, leading to entry
of default. After considering Respondent's conduct, the
serious injuries he caused clients, aggravating factors,
including prior discipline, and the potential mitigating
factor of depression on which no evidence was offered, the
Hearing Board concluded Respondent should be disbarred.
On November 20, 2003, Complainant filed a complaint in this
matter and sent the Citation and Complaint to Robert Melvin
Hohertz, Respondent, via regular and certified mail. On
November 21, 2003, Complainant filed Proof of Service. The
Proof of Service shows that the Citation and Complaint were
sent to Robert Melvin Hohertz, 301 South Weber Street,
Colorado Springs, CO 80903. This was the address Respondent
provided to the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney
Registration as required by C.R.C.P. 227. This certified
letter and its contents were returned on November 24, 2003
with the notation "Moved Left No Address." The
regular mail copy of the Complaint was not returned.1
Respondent did not file an answer to the Complaint. On
February 2, 2004, Complainant filed a motion for default
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) and C.R.C.P. 121, Section
1-14. On June 7, 2004, the PDJ granted this motion. By the
entry of default under C.R.C.P. 251.15(b), 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 the Complaint, attached as Exhibit
1.
The Complaint enumerates five separate client matters, which
are fully detailed. In summary, the Complainant alleges
Respondent failed to deliver contracted services, failed to
return fees he did not earn, and, in all but one case, failed
to surrender fees, papers, and property belonging to clients.
Since Respondent failed to appear at the sanctions hearing or
otherwise contest Complainant's recommendation, the
Hearing Board heard no evidence from Respondent neither on
these issues, nor on the issues of the proper sanction and
potential mitigation.
The factual background in this case is fully detailed in the
Complaint. The Hearing Board adopts and incorporates by
reference the Complaint and the facts and rule violations
alleged therein.
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Hearing Board considered the Complainant's argument,
the facts established by the entry of default, and exhibits
offered and admitted into evidence. These included the
Disciplinary Report of Investigation, a true copy of
Respondent's attorney registration, and two letters
addressed to the Respondent in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Both letters notified Respondent of the date and place of the
sanctions hearing. One of these letters was sent by certified
mail to the address Respondent provided to the Attorney
Registration Office of the Colorado Supreme Court as required
by C.R.C.P. 227.
Based upon the forgoing, the Hearing Board makes the
following findings and conclusions by clear and convincing
evidence:
(1) Respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of
admission, was admitted to the bar of this court on July 13,
1984, and is registered upon the official records of this
court, registration no. 13910. He is therefore subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings.
(2) As set forth in the Complaint in the Heitz, Cantrell,
Morris, Becker, and Gancarski matters, the Hearing Board
finds by clear and convincing evidence Respondent violated
Colo. RPC 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client and shall not neglect an
entrusted legal matter). Respondent failed in these matters
to act with reasonable diligence and neglected these clients.
See People v. Holmes, 951 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1998).
(3) As set forth in the Complaint in the Heitz matter, Claim
II, Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (lawyer shall not
reveal client confidences) when he disclosed without
Heitz's consent information to her friend about his
representation. Client information is broadly interpreted.
The comment to Colo. RPC 1.6(a) provides: "The
confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters
communicated in confidence by the client but also to all
information relating to the representation, whatever its
source."
(4) As set forth in the Complaint in the Heitz, Cantrell, and
Gancarski matters, Claims III, IV, VI, VII, IX, XII, and XIV,
the Hearing Board finds Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.15(b)
(failing to promptly deliver client funds and render
accounting after termination) and 1.16(d) (failing to take
steps to protect and surrender client papers and property).
Holmes, id.
(5) As set forth in the Complaint in the Morris matter, Claim
X, the Hearing Board finds Respondent violated Colo. RPC
8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation) when he told his client he had corrected
an inaccurate child support order and was waiting to hear
from the court, but this was not true.
III. SANCTIONS
When imposing sanctions for violations as found above, ABA
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ("ABA
Standards") 3.0 (1992) directs the Hearing Board to
consider the following factors:
(1) Duty violated;
(2) Lawyer's mental state;
(3) Actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct;
(4) Existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
(1) Duty
Respondent violated the duty to professionally represent
clients by failing to preserve client property and
confidences and to act with diligence and competence.
(2) Mental State
While it is clear Respondent has been diagnosed with clinical
depression in the past and the Hearing Board suspects
Respondent was probably suffering from depression at the time
he represented the clients in this case, there is no evidence
to determine what role, if any, depression had on his state
of mind. What is undisputed, however, is that Respondent
consciously took on these clients and failed to act with
diligence in their cases even when they...
To continue reading
Request your trial