Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge: Disciplinary Case Summaries, 0616 COBJ, Vol. 45 No. 6 Pg. 103
The summaries of disciplinary case Opinions and Conditional Admissions of Misconduct are prepared by the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ) and are provided as a service by the CBA. The CBA cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries. Opinions, including exhibits, complaints, amended complaints, and summaries, are available at the PDJ website, www.coloradosupremecourt.com/PDJ/pdj.htm, and on LexisNexis.® The summaries and full-text Opinions are also accessible from the CBA website: www.cobar.org (click on "Opinions/Rules/Statutes").
Opinion Denying Reinstatement
Nos. 15PDJ071 & 15PDJ105. People v. Reed. 04/19/2016
The PDJ denied on summary judgment the reinstatement petition of Michael John Reed, attorney registration number 36398, on April 19, 2016.
In August 2010, Reed stipulated to violating the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct in 16 separate client matters. He was suspended for three years. In March 2012, Reed pleaded guilty in California to a felony violation of cultivation of marijuana and a misdemeanor violation of possession of nunchaku. In March 2015, Reed completed probation, his guilty pleas were withdrawn, a plea of not guilty was entered, the information was dismissed, and the criminal case against him was expunged.
In August 2015, Reed petitioned for reinstatement. In October 2015, he reported his conviction to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, which filed a complaint against him in November 2015. The complaint alleged that by committing a criminal act, Reed had violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey the rules of a tribunal) by failing to report his California conviction within 14 days of his guilty plea.
On summary judgment, the PDJ denied Reed's petition for reinstatement because, as a matter of law, Reed could not prove by clear and convicting evidence that he complied with all applicable disciplinary orders and rules during his suspension. Under CRCP 251.29(g), Reed may not petition for reinstatement...
To continue reading
Request your trial