Disciplinary Case Summaries, 1120 COBJ, Vol. 49, No. 10 Pg. 92
| Position | Vol. 49, 10 [Page 92] |
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
No. 19PDI022. People v. Barnes. 8/9/2019. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge granted a summary judgment in this reciprocal discipline matter and publicly censured W. Jeffrey Barnes (attorney registration number 19646), effective September 13, 2019.
On January 16, 2019, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured Barnes. The Tennessee order of public censure determined that between May 2011 and August 2017 Barnes was admitted to practice pro hac vice in nine foreclosure-related actions in state and federal court in Tennessee. Though Barnes filed affidavits in each of those matters in support of his request for admission, stating in those affidavits that a copy of the affidavit and supporting documents were being sent contemporaneously to the Board of Professional Responsibility, he did not in fact send those materials. Further, Barnes failed to timely pay his pro hac vice registration fee as required by a Tennessee Supreme Court rule. Barnes thereby violated Tennessee rules mandating fairness to opposing parties and counsel, requiring candor to tribunals, and prohibiting conduct involving misrepresentation.
Through this conduct, Barnes engaged in conduct constituting grounds for reciprocal discipline under CRCP 251.21. The case file is public per CRCP 251.31.
No. 20PDI061. People v. Dawson. 9/17/2020. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties' conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Stephen David Dawson (attorney registration number 05136) for 60 days. The suspension was effective October 22, 2020.
In February 2018, Dawson agreed to represent a client in a marriage dissolution and child custody case. Dawson did not promptly communicate with his client, taking anywhere between three days and one month to respond to the client's questions. During the representation, Dawson submitted a settlement proposal to opposing counsel without obtaining his client's agreement. His client disagreed with aspects of the proposal and later counterproposals, which ultimately were rejected by the other party. Dawson later attempted to obtain his client's signature on answers to interrogatories after opposing counsel filed a motion to compel discovery responses. His client disagreed with some of the responses and refused to sign the verification page. Nevertheless, Dawson served the responses to opposing counsel with a verification page containing his client's signature. Neither Dawson nor his paralegal admitted to attaching the verification page. At a status conference held the day after Dawson served the interrogatory responses, he informed the court that his client had signed the responses. Dawson also explained at the conference that he failed to file his client's trial management certificate due to his own personal circumstances. Shortly after, Dawson filed amended answers to the interrogatories, again without obtaining his client's signature, because he felt that his client was not being cooperative with review and approval. Dawson believed the answers were correct but later learned that his client disagreed with certain statements in the amended answers. Communications between Dawson and his client broke down, and his client asked to end the representation. Dawson then moved to withdraw but failed to inform the court that his client had objected to the filed interrogatory responses.
Through this conduct, Dawson violated Colo. RPC 1.2(a) (a lawyer must abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of a case and consult with the client regarding the means to achieve the objectives); Colo. RPC 1.4(a) (a lawyer shall reasonably communicate with the client); Colo. RPC 1.4(b) (a lawyer shall explain a matter so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation); Colo. RPC 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal); and Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
The case file is public per CRCP 251.31.
No. 18PDI041 (consolidated with 19PDI002). People v. Efe. 4/4/2020.
A hearing board suspended Anselm Andrew Efe (attorney registration number 38357) from the practice of law for one year and one day, effective August 3, 2020. To be reinstated, Efe will bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated, has complied with disciplinary orders and rules, and is fit to practice law.
Efe committed misconduct in two separate clientmatters. In one matter, he placed a client's retainer directly into his operating account without earning the funds, neglected to notify the client of the basis of his fee in writing, and knowingly failed to return unearned funds to the client for six months. Through this conduct, Efe violated Colo. RPC 1.5(b) (a lawyer who has not regularly represented a client must communicate to the client in writing the basis or rate of the lawyer's fees within a reasonable time after beginning the representation); Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) (a lawyer must hold the property of a client separate from the lawyer's own property); and Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (on termination of the representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial