 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Calvert4/29/1996
Original Proceeding in Discipline
EN BANC
Per Curiam
This is a lawyer discipline case. The respondent has admitted in a stipulation, agreement and conditional admission of misconduct, C.R.C.P. 241.18, that he neglected two separate but similar client matters. The respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel have agreed that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law in the range of six months to one year and one day. An inquiry panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the conditional admission, and recommended that the respondent be suspended for one year and one day. We have reviewed all pleadings, including the respondent's Analysis of Discipline filed April 4, 1996. Based upon that review, we accept the conditional admission and the panel's recommendation.
I
The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1962. The conditional admission covers two formal complaints, GC 92A-97 and GC 95A-112, and the parties stipulated to the following facts and disciplinary violations.
A. GC 92A-97 (Count I)
On May 16, 1989, a Regional Transportation District ("RTD") bus collided with Wayne E. Buchannan. About June 13, 1989, Buchannan retained the respondent by way of a contingency fee agreement to file an action against RTD for his injuries. The respondent wrote to RTD on June 27, 1989, introducing himself as Buchannan's lawyer and asking RTD for any documents related to the accident. At the time, the respondent believed that his letter complied with the notice requirements of section 24- 10-109, 10A C.R.S. (1988).
The respondent subsequently filed an action against RTD in October 1990 in district court. RTD moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the respondent's letter or letters did not comply with the notice requirements of section 24-10-109, 10A C.R.S. (1988), of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. In December 1990, the district court Judge dismissed the complaint and the respondent appealed to the court of appeals. On October 10, 1991, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action because the notice requirements of section 24-10-109, 10A C.R.S. (1988), had not been satisfied. Buchanan v. Regional Transp. Dist., No. 91CA0133 (Colo. App. Oct. 10, 1991) (not selected for publication).
The evidence would also show that the respondent failed to adequately advise Buchannan that his case had been dismissed and that the appeal had failed. It was not until Buchannan consulted another lawyer that he fully understood that he could not proceed against RTD. Buchannan then brought a legal malpractice action against the respondent which was settled before trial for $60,000, an amount Buchannan believed to be a fair.
The respondent has admitted that the foregoing conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice); and DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer).
B. (Count II)
The contingency fee agreement between the respondent and Buchannan specifically excluded other legal matters such as "no- fault automobile benefits (PIP benefits)." Nevertheless, on or about January 19, 1990, the respondent received a check from RTD in the amount of $7,671.66 as wage reimbursement and personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The respondent and Buchannan were listed as payees. They both endorsed the check and went to the bank. The bank issued a cashier's check for $2,557.22 (one- third of $7,671.66) to Buchannan which he gave to the respondent.
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|