People v. C De Baca
1997 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2530, 1997 Colo. LEXIS 955, 948 P.2d 1 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction for an attorney, courts weigh aggravating factors, such as an extensive prior disciplinary record and causing serious client injury, against mitigating factors. A court may impose a lengthy suspension rather than the presumptive sanction of disbarment based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the timing of the misconduct and the practical consequences of the suspension.
Facts:
- In July 1992, Arturo Aguayo retained attorney Armando C de Baca to file a lawsuit concerning a concert promotion.
- In September 1992, C de Baca orally agreed to handle Aguayo's case on a contingent fee basis but never provided a written contract.
- C de Baca was suspended from the practice of law in an unrelated matter effective December 15, 1993, but failed to inform Aguayo of this.
- Between December 1993 and May 1994, while suspended, C de Baca collected $300 from Aguayo for costs to file the complaint, which he never filed.
- In May or June 1994, just before the statute of limitations was to expire, C de Baca informed Aguayo of his suspension, forcing Aguayo to file the complaint himself.
- In a separate matter, C de Baca was hired by Hector Alvarez in February 1989 to pursue a civil claim against his former employer, Osco Drug.
- C de Baca led Alvarez to believe a lawsuit had been filed, but he neglected the case and allowed the statute of limitations to expire in February 1991.
- After being sued for malpractice by Alvarez, C de Baca settled but then defaulted on the settlement agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- A formal disciplinary complaint was filed against the respondent, Armando C de Baca.
- The respondent failed to answer the complaint, and the hearing board entered a default against him.
- The hearing board denied the respondent's subsequent motion to set aside the default.
- Following a hearing on sanctions, the hearing board found the alleged facts were established and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
- A hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee reviewed the board's findings, approved them, but modified the recommended discipline to disbarment.
- The case was then submitted to the Supreme Court of Colorado for a final ruling on the appropriate sanction.
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 two-year suspension an appropriate disciplinary sanction for an attorney with an extensive prior disciplinary record who neglected two client matters, causing one client's claim to become time-barred and collecting fees from another client while suspended from the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a two-year suspension is an adequate sanction in this case. The court acknowledged that under ABA Standards, disbarment is generally the appropriate sanction for C de Baca's misconduct, which involved a pattern of neglect causing serious client injury and dishonest conduct. The court reviewed numerous aggravating factors, including an extensive history of prior discipline, a dishonest and selfish motive, multiple offenses, and the vulnerability of a client. However, the court ultimately adopted the hearing board's recommendation of a two-year suspension over the hearing panel's recommendation of disbarment. The reasoning was that the misconduct at issue occurred around the same time as the conduct leading to his prior 1993 suspension. The court determined that an additional two-year suspension, which would extend his total suspension to nearly six years and require him to retake the bar examination for reinstatement, was a sufficiently severe sanction under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant discretion courts exercise when imposing lawyer sanctions, even in the face of egregious misconduct and a long disciplinary history. It demonstrates that the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions serve as a guide rather than a mandate. The court's decision to deviate from the presumptive sanction of disbarment emphasizes that practical consequences, such as the cumulative length of suspension and the requirement to be re-examined for admission, can be considered significant enough to serve the goals of attorney discipline. This holding provides a precedent for considering the holistic effect of sanctions rather than applying a rigid rule based solely on the nature of the misconduct.
