Tcl - Disciplinary Opinions - September 2005 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases

• Publication year: 2005
• Pages: 165
• Citation: Vol. 34 No. 9 Pg. 165

34 Colo.Law. 165 Colorado Bar Journal 2005.

2005, September, Pg. 165. TCL - Disciplinary Opinions - September 2005 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases

The Colorado Lawyer

September 2005
Vol. 34, No. 9 [Page 165]

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 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 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, are also available at the Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge website:http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm; and on LexisNexisTM athttp://www.lexis.com/research, by clicking on States LegalU.S./Colo

rado/Cases and Court Rules/By Court/Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions.

Case Number: 04PDJ109

Petitioner:

CHARLES H. MEIER, JR.,

Respondent:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.

May 27, 2005

OPINION AND ORDER RE:

REINSTATEMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.29

This case comes before the Court pursuant to Petitioner Charles H. Meier's Verified Petition for Reinstatement, filed on November 24, 2004. Petitioner requests reinstatement to the practice of law under C.R.C.P. 251.29(c), after a one-year-and-one-day suspension for conviction of third degree sexual assault. In an Answer filed on December 16, 2004, the People acknowledged that Petitioner is eligible for reinstatement, but initially took no position on the merits of the Petition.

On March 30, 2005, a Hearing Board consisting of William R. Lucero, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ"), Ralph G. Torres and Paul Willumstad, both members of the bar, conducted a Reinstatement Hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.29(d) and 251.18. Michael D. Gross represented Petitioner, who was present. James S. Sudler represented the People. At the hearing, the Parties stipulated that Petitioner has complied with all terms and conditions of his suspension. Petitioner offered and the PDJ admitted by stipulation Petitioner's Exhibits 1-9. Petitioner also testified on his own behalf. The People did not present any evidence, either documentary or testimonial. At the conclusion of the evidence, however, the People argued against reinstatement.

With the consent of all Hearing Board members, the PDJ issued a Post-Reinstatement Hearing Order on April 1, 2005. This Order asked the Parties to consider a stipulation regarding reinstatement, and suggested that the Hearing Board might reopen the hearing for the presentation of additional evidence. In separate position statements filed on April 7 and April 11, 2005, the Parties declined to enter into a stipulation. The Hearing Board then declined to reopen the hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Board issues the following Opinion and Order.

ORDER: ATTORNEY REINSTATEMENT DENIED

I. ISSUE

Reinstatement of a law license after suspension for more than one year requires that the attorney prove "rehabilitation" by clear and convincing evidence. There is not one specific definition or test for rehabilitation. Rather, it has been characterized as an overwhelming change, evidenced by a multitude of factors and requiring positive action beyond doing what is proper. The issue presented is whether the attorney's own testimony regarding a change in outlook sufficient to show rehabilitation.

The Hearing Board finds that, however sincere, Respondent's own testimony alone was insufficient to demonstrate rehabilitation. There must be some independent corroborating and/or illustrative evidence from which the Hearing Board can conclude that the change is real and that the attorney merits reinstatement.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Hearing Board finds the following facts by clear and convincing evidence...