Disciplinary Case Summaries, 0717 COBJ, Vol. 46 No. 7 Pg. 76
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
No. 16PDJ077. People v. Atencio. 4/14/2017. Following a sanctions hearing, the PDJ disbarred Jerry R. Atencio, attorney registration number 08888, from the practice of law. Atencio’s disbarment took effect on May 19, 2017.
Atencio agreed to represent a married couple in three separate matters: two concerning rental property that they owned, and one concerning estate planning documents. In the first matter, Atencio failed to answer the complaint, which resulted in entry of default judgment against his clients; his clients then lost title to their rental property and their water rights. Atencio did not inform his clients that his inaction caused them to lose their property. In the second matter, Atencio failed to assert affirmative defenses for his clients, resulting in judgment and an award of attorney fees and costs in favor of the plaintiffs. Again, Atencio did not inform his clients of the orders. Atencio also pledged to prepare wills for his clients but never did so. He thereafter failed to respond to their attempts to communicate with him. Atencio then defaulted in this disciplinary proceeding.
Atencio’s conduct violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Colo. RPC 8.1(b) (a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority); and Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
No. 16PDJ023. People v. Coldiron. 11/3/2016. Following a reinstatement hearing, a hearing board denied Bradley D. Coldiron, attorney registration number 21328, reinstatement to the practice of law under CRCP 251.29. Coldiron may not file another petition for reinstatement for two years.
In March 2011, Coldiron was suspended for three years, with two years served, for having accepted a substantial loan to refinance his home from a long-time client in April 2009. He promised to pay his client back in 90 days with interest, but he did not do so. In taking the loan, he violated the rules governing business transactions with clients. He further failed to disclose this loan to the bank on his refinance application. He then gave his client three checks in repayment on three occasions, but all three checks were returned due to insufficient funds, and his client was forced to initiate collection proceedings against him. Coldiron did repay his client in full by March 2010 but did not pay any interest. Under the terms of his stipulation...
To continue reading
Request your trial