Tcl - Disciplinary Opinion - April 2007 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Publication year | 2007 |
Pages | 113 |
Citation | Vol. 36 No. 4 Pg. 113 |
2007, April, Pg. 113. TCL - Disciplinary Opinion - April 2007 - Colorado Disciplinary Cases
The Colorado Lawyer
April 2007
Vol. 36, No. 4 [Page 113]
April 2007
Vol. 36, No. 4 [Page 113]
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Disciplinary Opinion
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 (PDJ)
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 PDJ 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 PDJ. 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 PDJ William R. Lucero and the 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, amended
complaints, and summaries, also are available at the Office
of the PDJ website:
http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm; and on
LexisNexis(r) athttp://www.lexis.com/research, by
clicking on States Legal-U.S./Colorado/Cases/CO Supreme Court
Disciplinary Opinions from 1999.
Case No: 06PDJ036
Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent:
CAROL A. CHAMBERS.
December 26, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
On October 23-25, 2006, a Hearing Board composed of Edwin S.
Kahn, Richard P. Holme, both members of the Bar, and William
R. Lucero, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
("PDJ"), held a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P.
251.18. Charles E. Mortimer, Jr. appeared on behalf of the
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the
People"). Michael T. McConnell and Cecelia A. Fleischner
appeared on behalf of Carol A. Chambers
("Respondent"). The Hearing Board issues the
following Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions based upon the
evidence presented by the parties.
I. SUMMARY
The Hearing Board concludes that the following counts have
not been established by clear and convincing evidence: Count
I, violation of Colo. RPC 4.1(a) (in the course of
representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a
false or misleading statement); Count II, Colo. RPC 4.5(a) (a
lawyer shall not threaten to present a criminal charge to
gain an advantage in a civil case); and Count III, Colo. RPC
8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving
dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The Hearing
Board concludes that clear and convincing evidence has been
established that Respondent violated Count IV, Colo. RPC
8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration of justice).
SANCTION IMPOSED: PUBLIC CENSURE
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2006, the People filed their complaint in this
matter and Respondent filed her answer on June 28, 2006. The
complaint contained four counts as enumerated in the summary
above.(fn1) The People presented four witnesses at the
hearing: Jonathan Steiner, Esq., Gwen Kikendahl, Respondent,
and Michael Knight, Chief Investigator in Respondent's
office. Respondent presented four witnesses: Laurett
Barrentine, Nathan Chambers, Esq., Mason Finks, and former
Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, Jean Dubofsky. The
parties stipulated to the admission of Exhibits E, G, and Q.
The People offered and the PDJ admitted Exhibits 1-5, and 7
during the hearing. Respondent offered and the PDJ admitted
Exhibits A-C, K, M, and P during the hearing.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the People argued that
Respondent's conduct, at a minimum, warrants public
censure. Respondent argued that the People failed to
establish clear and convincing evidence on any of the counts
set forth in the complaint.
III. FINDINGS OF MATERIAL FACT
The Hearing Board considered the testimony of each witness
and each exhibit admitted into evidence, and finds the
following material facts established by clear and convincing
evidence.
Background
Respondent has taken and subscribed the Oath of Admission,
was admitted to the Bar of the State of Colorado on November
1, 1985, and is registered as an attorney upon the official
records of the Colorado Supreme Court, Attorney Registration
No. 14948. She is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of
the Colorado Supreme Court and the Office of the Presiding
Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings.
Respondent began her legal career as a clerk for a Colorado
Court of Appeals judge and later practiced as an associate in
a private law firm. In 1990, Respondent joined the District
Attorney's office for the Eighteenth Judicial District as
a deputy district attorney. She became a chief deputy
district attorney in 1998. In November 2004, Respondent was
elected as the District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial
District and she serves in that capacity to date.
At all relevant times in this case, Respondent served as the
elected District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial
District. Laurett Barrentine was and is an Englewood City
Councilperson with whom Respondent was acquainted from
various political functions. In November 2005, Ms. Barrentine
informed Respondent about a collection lawsuit Central Credit
Corporation ("CCC") filed against her in Arapahoe
County Court for allegedly writing two bad checks to Wal-Mart
stores. Jonathan Steiner represented CCC in the collection
lawsuit. Ms. Barrentine told Respondent that she had been a
victim of identity theft in 1999 and that she had not written
the checks in question. Ms. Barrentine also told Respondent
that CCC and Mr. Steiner both knew that she had not written
the checks and that Mr. Steiner and CCC were using the court
system in a way designed to "get people to pay on checks
that they did not owe."
The Collection Lawsuit - CCC v.
Barrentine
By the time Ms. Barrentine spoke to Respondent in early
November 2005, she had already spoken on the phone numerous
times to "collectors" from CCC. Ms. Barrentine
repeatedly told the collectors that she had not written the
checks in question and at the same time demanded copies of
them. CCC never sent her the checks. Ms. Barrentine
ultimately demanded that the CCC collectors stop calling and
instead sue her if they thought she owed them money. Two
weeks later she was served with a complaint.
On July 28, 2005, Mr. Steiner filed a complaint against Ms.
Barrentine on behalf of CCC in Arapahoe County Court.(fn2)
The parties appeared at a court-ordered return date on August
24, 2005. On that date, Ms. Barrentine filed an answer and
counterclaim for $5,000 and also requested a jury trial. The
magistrate scheduled the case for a jury trial and ordered
mandatory mediation. Each party paid a mediation fee of
$110.00.
The parties attended the mandatory mediation on October 26,
2005. Mr. Steiner offered to dismiss the case, however, Ms.
Barrentine refused to accept a dismissal unless CCC paid her
costs, as authorized for the prevailing party by C.R.S. §
13-21-109(6).(fn3) At that point, Mr. Steiner refused to pay
her costs.
Mr. Steiner has been licensed to practice law for 15 years
and has filed approximately 100 bad check cases a month over
the past five years as a collections lawyer. When Mr. Steiner
filed this case on behalf of CCC against Ms. Barrentine, he
did so without determining whether the account on which the
checks in question belonged to Ms. Barrentine. Instead, Mr.
Steiner and CCC relied solely upon the name and signature on
the checks: Laurett Barrentine. Mr. Steiner and CCC expected
Ms. Barrentine to provide evidence that she did not author
the checks in question
Respondent's Knowledge of Complaints
Against Collection Agencies as of January 23,
2006
In addition to Ms. Barrentine's specific complaint about
CCC and Mr. Steiner, Respondent also possessed a general
knowledge of other citizen complaints reported to her office
concerning abusive collection agency practices and the
exponential growth of identity theft in Colorado. The
uncontested evidence is that Colorado ranked fifth in the
nation in reported identity theft at the time Respondent
called Mr. Steiner.
Before she spoke to Mr. Steiner...
To continue reading
Request your trial