Tcl - Disciplinary Opinions - October 2005 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases

• Jurisdiction: Colorado,United States
• Citation: Vol. 34 No. 10 Pg. 123
• Pages: 123
• Publication year: 2005

34 Colo.Law. 123 Colorado Bar Journal 2005.

2005, October, Pg. 123. TCL - Disciplinary Opinions - October 2005 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases

The Colorado Lawyer
October 2005
Vol. 34, No. 10 [Page 123]

From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Disciplinary Opinions

The Colorado Supreme Court 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, together with a two-member hearing board, issues orders 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 accessible from the CBA website: http://www.cobar.org (click on The Colorado Lawyer tab, then the appropriate issue). Opinions, including Exhibits, Complaints, and Amended Complaints and summaries, also are 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: 05PDJ028

Petitioner:

WILLIAM J. FRITSCHE, III,

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

August 6, 2005

ORDER RE: VERIFIED PETITION FOR READMISSION

On March 15, 2005, Petitioner William J. Fritsche, III, filed a Verified Petition for Readmission under C.R.C.P. 251.29(a) requesting readmission to the Bar following entry of the Colorado Supreme Court's order of disbarment effective July 5, 1995. In an Answer filed April 1, 2005, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People") asserted Petitioner failed to allege his compliance with the rules concerning required action following disbarment set forth in C.R.C.P. 251.28, formerly C.R.C.P. 241.21. On May 2, 2005, the People waived the provisions of C.R.C.P. 251.28(g), and withdrew any objection to Petitioner proceeding with his petition. On May 19, 2005, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, ("the PDJ" or "the Court") found good cause to waive the provisions of C.R.C.P. 251.28(g). On June 9, 2005, the Court set a hearing on Petitioner's Verified Petition for July 18, 2005.

On July 18, 2005, a Hearing Board, consisting of William R. Lucero, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ"), Frederick Y. Yu and Douglas D. Piersel, both members of the bar, conducted a Readmission Hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.29(d) and 251.18. Petitioner appeared pro se. Charles E. Mortimer represented the People. At the hearing, the People stipulated to Petitioner's compliance with all requirements for readmission, and argued Petitioner is rehabilitated and should be readmitted. Petitioner offered, and the PDJ admitted by stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit A, and Petitioner's Exhibits D through Q. Petitioner also testified on his own behalf. The People did not present any documentary or testimonial evidence. The People argued in favor of Petitioner's readmission at the conclusion of the evidence.

ORDER: ATTORNEY READMISSION GRANTED I. ISSUE

Readmission after disbarment requires the attorney to prove "rehabilitation" by clear and convincing evidence. Rehabilitation is demonstrated by an overwhelming change, evidenced by a multitude of factors and requiring positive action beyond fulfilling the technical requirements of C.R.C.P. 251.29(a). Is the People's stipulation to readmission, Petitioner's testimony regarding such a change, as well as Petitioner's demonstrated zeal1 to once again practice law, sufficient to show...