In re Olsen
2014 WL 2516097, 2014 CO 42, 326 P.3d 1004 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's negligent, but not knowing, pursuit of frivolous claims on behalf of a client warrants a sanction of public censure rather than suspension, even in the presence of several aggravating factors.
Facts:
- Attorney John R. Olsen agreed to represent Melissa Mellott on a pro bono basis for an unemployment claim after she was terminated from MSN Communications, Inc.
- Olsen filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Mellott, seeking back pay and other damages.
- Throughout the litigation, Mellott claimed she had not been employed since her termination, despite MSN providing Olsen with payroll records from two other companies, Blackstone and Qwest, showing she had earned substantial income.
- Mellott also claimed she was authorized to use a second Social Security number, providing a document with the word "temporary" misspelled as "temperary" as proof.
- When confronted with evidence that the second Social Security number belonged to another person, Mellott offered conflicting explanations, which Olsen accepted.
- Mellott later claimed she had moved to Germany for a military assignment, causing Olsen to inform the court of her unavailability.
- This claim was disproven when an MSN employee photographed Mellott working locally and her own husband testified that she had not left the country.
- Olsen continued to advocate for Mellott's claims and submitted his own sworn declarations supporting her fabrications, such as her alleged move to Germany.
Procedural Posture:
- John R. Olsen, representing Melissa Mellott, filed a lawsuit against MSN Communications in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
- The federal district court sanctioned Olsen and Mellott $25,000 each, finding Olsen unreasonably multiplied the proceedings and reaffirmed false statements made by Mellott.
- The Office of Attorney Regulation filed a disciplinary complaint against Olsen.
- A disciplinary Hearing Board conducted a hearing and found that Olsen violated Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 (advancing frivolous claims) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
- The Hearing Board concluded that Olsen's mental state was negligent, not knowing, because he did not have actual knowledge his client was lying.
- Based on its findings and a weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, the Hearing Board imposed a sanction of a six-month suspension with a requirement of reinstatement.
- Olsen appealed the Hearing Board's sanction to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a six-month suspension a reasonable sanction for an attorney who negligently, but not knowingly, pursues frivolous claims and engages in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hobbs
No, a six-month suspension is not a reasonable sanction. Public censure is the appropriate sanction for an attorney who engages in negligent, rather than knowing, misconduct. The Hearing Board correctly found that Olsen's mental state was one of negligence, as he did not have actual knowledge that his client's claims were false. While an attorney has a duty to advocate for their client, this does not override the professional duty to independently assess the factual basis for claims, especially when presented with credible contradictory evidence. The court found that the Hearing Board gave undue weight to several aggravating factors, such as 'multiple offenses' and 'pattern of misconduct,' when elevating the presumptive sanction of public censure to a six-month suspension. Given that the primary purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, not punish the lawyer, public censure is a sufficient and more reasonable sanction in this case.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between negligent and knowing misconduct in attorney discipline cases, establishing that an attorney's mental state is a key factor in determining the severity of a sanction. By reducing the sanction from suspension to public censure, the Colorado Supreme Court signals that suspension is generally reserved for intentional or knowing ethical violations. This precedent guides disciplinary bodies to be more measured when applying aggravating factors, ensuring that sanctions are not disproportionately increased when the core violation stems from negligence. The ruling also clarifies that while attorneys can rely on client statements, this reliance becomes unreasonable in the face of credible, contradictory evidence, obligating the attorney to conduct a reasonable investigation.
