Disciplinary Opinions - April 2006 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases
| Publication year | 2006 |
| Pages | 153 |
2006, April, Pg. 153. Disciplinary Opinions - April 2006 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases
April 2006
Vol. 35, No. 4 [Page 153]
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.
Case Number: 05PDJ038
Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent:
STUART GEORGE BARR.
January 10, 2006
REPORT, DECISION, AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.15(b)
On November 8, 2005, William R. Lucero, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court"), held a Sanctions Hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18(d). April M. Seekamp appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"). Stuart George Barr ("Respondent") did not appear, nor did counsel appear on his behalf. The Court issues the following Report, Decision, and Order Imposing Sanctions.
I. ISSUE
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client. Respondent knowingly failed to file a complaint on behalf of a client and failed to cooperate with the People in these proceedings. Respondent also failed to participate or present any evidence to mitigate his conduct and has been disciplined seven times in the past for failing to perform client services. Is disbarment the appropriate sanction under these circumstances?
SANCTION IMPOSED: ATTORNEY DISBARRED
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Respondent failed to file an answer in these proceedings and the Court granted the People's Motion for Default on July 18, 2005. Upon the entry of default, the Court deems all facts in the complaint admitted and all rule violations established. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341, 346 (Colo. 1987).
The Court hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the factual background of this case fully detailed in the admitted complaint.1 In summary, Respondent failed to act professionally when he knowingly failed to file a complaint on behalf of his client in a personal injury action prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Consequently, the client is forever barred from bringing a personal injury action against the driver of the vehicle who caused the accident. Respondent also knowingly failed to respond or cooperate with the People in the investigation of this matter. The facts admitted through the entry of default constitute violations of Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer) and Colo. RPC 8.1(b) (a lawyer shall not fail to respond reasonably to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority) and warrant discipline under C.R.C.P. 251.5(d).
III. SANCTIONS
The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) ("ABA Standards") and Colorado Supreme Court case law are the guiding authorities for selecting and imposing sanctions for lawyer misconduct. Disbarment generally is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.41. Disbarment is therefore the presumptive sanction in this case. The Court, however, must also examine the duty breached, the mental state of the lawyer, the injury or potential injury caused, and the aggravating and mitigating evidence pursuant to ABA Standard 3.0.
Respondent's failure to participate in these proceedings leaves the Court with no other option but to consider only the allegations and rule violations set forth in the Complaint in evaluating the factors listed above. The Court finds Respondent breached his duties to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when he failed to file a complaint on behalf of his client, and failed to cooperate with the People in the investigation of this matter. The entry of default established that Respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial