 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Carey6/9/1997
Original Proceeding in Discipline
EN BANC
PER CURIAM
The respondent and the complainant executed a stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct pursuant to C.R.C.P. 241.18. The conditional admission recommended that the respondent receive a private or public censure. In approving the conditional admission, an inquiry panel of the supreme court grievance committee recommended that the respondent be publicly censured. We accept the conditional admission and the panel's recommendation.
I.
The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1989. The conditional admission states that the respondent represented an individual who had been arrested in May 1992 for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The respondent contacted the arresting officer on July 13, 1992, and told him that he would appreciate it if the officer did not appear at his client's license revocation hearing. The officer said he would think about it, and then reported the incident to the district attorney. The officer appeared at the license revocation hearing of respondent's client.
In a second matter, the respondent represented a client who had been arrested for DUI and for assaulting a Leadville police officer, John Wederquist, in April 1993. The respondent contacted the Leadville Assistant Police Chief on June 1, 1993, and asked him to determine if Officer Wederquist would be satisfied if respondent's client made a particular plea agreement.
The respondent submits that this Discussion was part of a larger plea negotiation in which the respondent wanted to meet with the police chief and the assistant police chief, Wederquist, and a deputy district attorney, to dispose of both the DUI and the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) hearing. The respondent spoke with the assistant chief concerning Wederquist not appearing at the revocation hearing in return for his client pleading guilty to a charge to be determined through plea negotiations. On September 3, 1993, the assistant chief advised the respondent that the deputy district attorney would not accept the respondent's client's offer and a criminal investigation ensued which resulted in the respondent pleading guilty to one count of first degree official misconduct, in violation of section 18-8-104, 8B C.R.S. (1986), a misdemeanor, on March 19, 1996.
The respondent has admitted that his conduct, which occurred before and after the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, January 1, 1993, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice); Colo. RPC 8.4(h) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law); and C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) (violating the criminal laws of a state or of the United States).
II.
When it approved the conditional admission, the inquiry panel recommended that the respondent be publicly censured. The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards), provide that, in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors, public censure "is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding." ABA Standards 6.23. On the other hand, a private censure is warranted when "a lawyer engages in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding." Id. at 6
Page 1 2 3 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|