Disciplinary Case Summaries, 0520 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 5 Pg. 66
| Position | Vol. 49, 5 [Page 66] |
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
No. 19PDJ036. People v. Abrams. 2/12/2020.
A hearing board suspended Robert E. Abrams (attorney registration number 37950) for three months, all stayed upon die successful completion of an 18-month probationary period, with conditions to include cultural sensitivity training. The probation took effect March 18, 2020.
Abrams was hired by a married couple to file a construction contract lawsuit against their former builder. During the course of the litigation, Abrams developed a negative opinion of the judge presiding over the case. In an email to his clients, Abrams referred to the judge using a derogatory slur that exhibited bias or prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation. This conduct violated Colo. RPC 8.4(g) (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that exhibits or is intended to appeal to or engender bias against a person based on the person's race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, when such conduct is directed to anyone involved in the legal process).
Abrams ultimately secured a favorable outcome for his clients, but the relationship soured and he with drew from the representation. His clients reported him to the disciplinary authorities. After responding to the clients' disciplinary grievance, Abrams charged them for the time his firm spent preparing a response in the disciplinary matter. Abrams did not reverse those charges for 13 months. This conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (a lawyer shall not charge an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses).
The case file is public per CRCP 251.31.
No. 19PDJ034. People v. Bath. 1/27/2020.
Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred David Eugene Bath (attorney registration number 05679). The disbarment took effect March 2, 2020.
Bath represented a client in a personal injury claim arising from an automobile accident against an at-fault driver. As part of the representation, Bath requested from the client's treating provider a lien agreement on behalf of his client, whereby the client's medical bills would be paid on a lien basis. The treating provider agreed, and Bath executed the lien agreement. When the client's case later settled, Bath withheld the full lien amount from her settlement funds disbursement in accordance with the lien agreement. But Bath never notified the treating provider...
To continue reading
Request your trial