People v. Emmert
676 P.2d 672, 1983 Colo. LEXIS 591 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's prolonged neglect of a client's legal matter, failure to adequately communicate with the client, and lack of cooperation with a disciplinary investigation constitute professional misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law.
Facts:
- In November 1976, John D. Hiett conferred with attorney David B. Emmert about obtaining title to property awarded to his wife in a Decree of Dissolution, paying Emmert a $50 retainer.
- Emmert contacted the wife's attorney, who advised that the wife would not relinquish her interest unless she received $650.
- Hiett informed Emmert he would not pay his former wife and instructed Emmert to proceed with court action, which Emmert agreed to do.
- Emmert requested an additional $250 retainer for filing a Motion to Set Aside Default, and Hiett subsequently paid $100 in March 1977, agreeing to pay the balance at the end of the case.
- Between September 1978 and February 1981, Hiett telephoned Emmert on at least seventeen occasions to inquire about the case's progress, and Emmert consistently promised to proceed.
- On February 11, 1981, Emmert advised Hiett to abandon his attempt to recover the property, stating he had no chance of success, and offered to refund fees, but Hiett refused, still wanting the property.
- Emmert never filed the Motion to Set Aside Default and did not inform Hiett that he had failed to do so.
Procedural Posture:
- John D. Hiett filed an informal complaint against attorney David B. Emmert with the Grievance Committee in April 1981.
- The Grievance Committee mailed a copy of the informal complaint to Emmert, who failed to respond.
- Investigative counsel for the Grievance Committee sent a letter to Emmert, who also made no reply and failed to keep a scheduled appointment.
- A formal complaint was filed with the Supreme Court Grievance Committee, charging Emmert with violations of professional conduct rules.
- Emmert filed an Answer, denying fault and claiming Hiett had abandoned his case by failing to pay reasonable attorney fees.
- A Hearing Board considered the evidence, made findings, and concluded that the allegations of the formal complaint had been proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Hearing Board recommended that Emmert be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, and be reinstated only after demonstrating his fitness to practice law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's repeated failure to pursue a client's legal claim, failure to communicate adequately, and failure to cooperate with a grievance committee investigation warrant suspension from the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Rovira, Justice
Yes, an attorney's prolonged neglect of a client's case, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation with a disciplinary investigation warrant suspension from the practice of law. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Emmert neglected to perform legal services for which he contracted, causing harm to his client by denying Hiett's right to assert his claim and prejudicing his chances of regaining the property. Emmert's conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(3) for prejudicing or damaging a client during a professional relationship. Additionally, Emmert violated C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) by failing to respond to the informal complaint and cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation without good cause. The court noted Emmert's history of prior disciplinary actions, including a letter of admonition, a public censure, and a six-month suspension, which contributed to the decision regarding the appropriate sanction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the ethical obligations of attorneys regarding diligence, communication, and cooperation with disciplinary bodies. It establishes that repeated and significant neglect of a client's legal matter, coupled with a failure to be transparent with the client about the case's status and a refusal to engage with disciplinary investigations, will lead to serious professional sanctions. The court's emphasis on prior disciplinary history serves as a warning that repeat offenders will face increasingly severe penalties, highlighting the importance of upholding professional standards to protect the public's trust in the legal profession.
