Disciplinary Opinions

• Jurisdiction: Colorado,United States
• Citation: Vol. 36 No. 1 Pg. 125
• Pages: 125
• Publication year: 2007

36 Colo.Law. 125 Colorado Lawyer 2007.

2007, January, Pg. 125. Disciplinary Opinions

The Colorado Lawyer
January 2007
Vol. 36, No. 1 [Page 125]

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 (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(t) at http://www.lexis.com/research, by clicking on States Legal-U.S./Colorado/Cases/CO Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions from 1999.

Case No: 06PDJ023

Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent:
CECILIA M. SERNA

October 3, 2006

REPORT, DECISION, AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO
C.R.C.P. 251.19(c)

On September 19, 2006, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court") held a Sanctions Hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18(d). Charles E. Mortimer, Jr. appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"). Cecilia M. Serna ("Respondent") did not appear, nor did counsel appear on her behalf. The Court issues the following Report, Decision, and Order Imposing Sanctions.

I. ISSUE

Disbarment is generally appropriate, absent significant evidence of mitigation, when a lawyer knowingly converts client funds or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and causes injury. Respondent knowingly converted a cost retainer and knowingly practiced law while under an administrative order of suspension. Respondent did not participate in these proceedings and provided no evidence of mitigation to offset several aggravating...