 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Bergmann4/30/1990
Per Curiam
In this attorney discipline case, a hearing board of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee (Committee) recommended that the respondent, Glenn A. Bergmann, be suspended from the practice of law for three years, satisfy a judgment as a condition of reinstatement, and be assessed the costs of these disciplinary proceedings. After reviewing the findings of fact and recommendation of the board, a hearing panel of the Committee accepted the findings and the recommendation of suspension, but recommended that satisfaction of the judgment not be made a condition of reinstatement until certain appellate proceedings had been concluded. We accept the recommendation of the panel.
I
The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1966, and is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this court and its Grievance Committee. The facts as found by the hearing board are as follows.
In 1978, Maurice Frey was injured while riding in a car driven by his employer, James Taylor. Both men retained respondent to represent them in workers' compensation claims and personal injury actions. In November 1980, respondent filed a personal injury action on behalf of Taylor. In January 1982, Taylor secured a jury verdict of over $200,000. The case was settled shortly thereafter.
Respondent failed to file a personal injury action on behalf of Frey. After respondent failed to return his numerous telephone calls over a lengthy period of time, Frey contacted another attorney, Kenneth N. Kripke in July 1986. After ascertaining the pertinent facts, Kripke advised Frey that the statute of limitations had expired on his personal injury claim. Frey then retained Kripke to file a malpractice action against respondent.
On August 19, 1987, the malpractice action came to trial in the Jefferson County District Court before the Honorable James D. Zimmerman. The respondent appeared pro se. His motion for a continuance was denied. After testifying under cross-examination, he left the courtroom never to return. The trial to the court was concluded in his absence. On August 20, 1987, judgment was entered against the respondent and in favor of Frey for $94,200 actual and $40,000 exemplary damages, and in favor of Frey's wife in the amount of $21,000 actual and $10,000 exemplary damages, plus costs and interest. Frey died a few weeks after trial.
The board found, based upon conflicting testimony, that the respondent had been retained by Frey to represent him in connection with his personal injury claim. Further, that the neglect of the matter resulted in the statute of limitations running against Frey, resulting in injury to him. The board also found that the respondent did not carry professional liability insurance, and the Freys had not recovered on the judgment obtained against the respondent.
The board concluded that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, DR 6-101(A) (3); intentionally failed to seek the lawful objective of his client, DR 7-101(A) (1); intentionally failed to carry out a contract of employment, DR 7-101(A) (2); prejudiced or damaged his client during the course of a professional relationship, DR 7-101(A) (3); engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, DR 7-102(A) (6); and committed gross negligence in violation of C.R.C.P. 241.6(4).
In arriving at its recommendation of appropriate discipline, the board considered the respondent's record of prior discipline and the ABA, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986). As to the former, the board noted that in 1984, the respondent received a letter of admonition for his failure to prosecut
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.
|
|