I

::..

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE FILED
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY
JUDGE JAN 04 2010
1560 Broadway, Suite 675 PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
Denver, Colorado 80202 SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
Complainant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ... COURT USE ONLY ...
Respondent: Case Number:
PATRICK DENNIS BEASLEY
Lisa E. Frankel, #28634 10PDJOO4
Assistant Regulation Counsel
John S. Gleason, #15011
Regulation Counsel
Attorneys for Complainant
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 866-6425
Facsimile: (303) 893-5302
COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P. 251.9 through 251.14, and it is alleged as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of

admission, was admitted to the bar of this Court on June 8, 1995, and is registered upon the official records of this Court, registration number 25637. He is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's registered business address is 1602 S. Parker Road, #311, Denver, Colorado 80231 and his registered home address is 3183 S. Race Street, Englewood, Colorado 80113.

General Allegations

2. In April of 2008, Patrick Kennedy and Guadalupe Rodriguez

n/k/ a Guadalupe Kennedy met with respondent and inquired about applying for residency for Ms. Rodriguez, who was about to marry Mr.

Kennedy. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Kennedy told respondent they would be getting married on May 2, and would be back after the marriage to get things started.

3. On May 8, 2008, the Kennedys signed a Legal Services

Contract with the Law Offices of Cianciolo & Beasley, LLCl, providing for a flat fee of $2,350.00 for obtaining an 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative. The Legal Services Contract required an advance retainer of $1,500.00. It also provided that the retainer becomes the property of the lawyer upon receipt; the lawyer shall not be required to place the retainer in an IOLTA escrow account or any similar segregated account; and the retainer may be treated as income by the law office upon receipt.

4. Also on May 8, 2008, the Kennedys paid respondent a

retainer of $1,500.00. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Kennedy gave respondent an additional $450.00 and two money orders to be sent to immigration for the fees they charge.

5. Respondent put the Kennedys' retainer into his office

account. (Until March of 2009, respondent did not have a trust account and any client retainer that was given to him as a flat fee was placed directly into his office account.) As of May 8, 2008, respondent had at most performed three hours worth of work on the Kennedys' matter.

6. On May 30, 2008, respondent filed a Notice of Entry of

Appearance as Attorney or Representative with the U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service. The following forms were prepared at this time: 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative, 1-864 Affidavit of Support, 1-765 Application for Employment Authorization and G-325 Biographic Information forms.

7. On or about August 8, 2008, Mr. Kennedy received a

rejection notice from the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services C'USCIS"). The rejection notice states that based on the information provided, the priority date does not appear to be current.

8. Respondent's legal assistant, Anthony Espinosa, told Mr.

Kennedy that this was normal and nothing to worry about. Mr. Espinosa stated that he spoke with respondent and told Mr. Kennedy they "just had to write a letter and send it back to Immigration".

I Mary Lu Cianciolo, Esq. sold her law office to respondent in July of2007. There was a transition period where respondent still used the name of Cianciolo & Beasley, LLC. He stopped using this name in approximately March 2009.

2

9. Mr. Kennedy did not hear back from respondent, so he

continued to call approximately every two weeks and talked with Mr. Espinosa. Mr. Kennedy repeatedly asked Mr. Espinosa to have respondent return his call, but respondent did not. Mr. Espinosa noted all telephone calls for the respondent on telephone call memo forms and placed them on the respondent's desk or, if the office were particularly busy, e-mails or instant messages would be sent to the respondent.

10. On November 11, 2008, Mr. Kennedy called respondent's office again and spoke with respondent's new assistant, Eduardo Credes. Mr. Credes advised him that he checked and found out Mr. Espinosa never sent their case back to immigration. Mr. Credes apologized to Mr. Kennedy and told him he would inform respondent of the problem.

11. On or about November 12, 2008, the Kennedys went to respondent's office for an appointment. Respondent did not appear for the appointment, but Mr. Credes was able to reach respondent by telephone. Respondent agreed to try to streamline the immigration process and stated he would call Mr. Kennedy in the morning.

12. On November 13, 2008, respondent told Mr. Kennedy to put together a letter explaining everything that had happened. Mr. Kennedy told respondent that his wife would have a job if she got her papers by January 1, 2009, and that his wife needed to be put on his health insurance and there was a deadline for doing so by the end of the year.

13. On or about November 17, 2008, respondent filed a "Request for Expedited Processing Under USCIS Expedite Criteria." Respondent concurrently filed 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative, 1-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, 1-765 Application for Employment Authorization and 1-864 Affidavit of Support forms.

14. In the Request for Expedited Processing, respondent admitted that he failed to supervise Mr. Espinosa. He stated he was not informed the application package was returned by USCIS and it was not repaired or resubmitted by his assistant. Respondent noted the file sat without being worked on for about three months. Respondent admitted that it was ultimately his fault that there was a three month delay in the processing of his clients' case and that they had, "zealously pursued communicating with my office regarding the completion of their case, to no avail." Respondent requested that the application, especially the 1- 765, be processed with all due haste.

15. In December of 2008, Mr. Kennedy received a notice from USCIS that his application was received. Ms. Kennedy received a notice advising her that she would receive an appointment notice for her

3

,

biometrics appointment, if required. Mr. Kennedy called respondent and the telephone number was disconnected.

16. At some point, Mr. Kennedy went to respondent's office unannounced. Respondent told Mr. Kennedy that the phones in the building were having problems. Respondent gave Mr. Kennedy his cell phone number. Respondent answered Mr. Kennedy's call on his cell phone one time and then never responded to that telephone number again.

17. Around the end of December of 2008, respondent's telephone number was disconnected again.

18. On or about January 6, 2009, Mr. Kennedy called respondent's office. Mr. Credes told Mr. Kennedy that respondent is not very good at returning calls and that respondent had been out of the office for two weeks. Respondent did not return Mr. Kennedy's telephone calls after December of 2008.

19. Mr. Kennedy's wife's immigration process is now completed and his wife's 1-130 was approved. The Kennedys completed the immigration process on their own, including Ms. Kennedy attending her interview with immigration without respondent present. Ms. Kennedy was not able to get on Mr. Kennedy's health insurance and also lost her job offer due to respondent's failure to timely finish the immigration process.

20. The Kennedys filed a small claims action against respondent.

The case went to trial on May 7, 2009. The court ordered respondent to pay Mr. Kennedy $1,092.00. Respondent has not paid. On May 7,2009, respondent was ordered to answer interrogatories and return the answers to the clerk of court within ten days after service of the interrogatories upon respondent. Respondent did not answer the interrogatories until May 29, 2009. The Wells Fargo bank account numbers respondent provided in response to the interrogatories were bogus, so the Kennedys have not been able to collect on the judgment. Mr. Kennedy called Wells Fargo, and none of the numbers provided by respondent matched their accounts.

CLAIM I

[A Lawyer Shall Act With Reasonable Diligence and Promptness in Representing a Client -- Colo. RPC 1.3]

21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.

4

22. Colo. RPC 1.3 provides that a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

23. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness and neglected the Kennedys' legal matter by his failure to timely re-file their immigration application and not completing the work he was retained to do on behalf of the Kennedys.

24. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury or potentially injury to the Kennedys.

25. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.3.

WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.

CLAIM II

[Failure to Keep a Client Reasonably Informed About the Status of a Matter - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3)]

26. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated as if fully set forth.

27. Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.

28. The respondent failed to comply with this duty of communication by failing to adequately communicate with the Kennedys and failing to respond to Mr. Kennedy's reasonable requests for information throughout the course of his representation of the Kennedys.

29. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

30. The respondent's pattern and practice of failing to communicate with the client caused injury or potential injury to the Kennedys.

WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.

CLAIM III

[Negligent or Technical Conversion -- Colo. RPC 1.1S(a)]

31. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.

5

..

32. Colo. RPC 1.15(a) provides that a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession separate from the lawyer's own property.

33. By placing the Kennedys' retainer into his office account, when he had only performed at most three hours worth of work on the Kennedys' matter at that time, the respondent failed to keep third party funds separate from his own property. Respondent never completed the work he was retained to do by the Kennedys.

34. The respondent exercised unauthorized dominion or ownership over funds belonging to the Kennedys.

35. By exercising unauthorized dominion or ownership over the Kennedys' retainer, the respondent negligently converted and/ or misappropriated such funds.

36. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1. 15(a).

WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.

CLAIM IV

[Failing to Adequately Supervise a Non-Lawyer Assistant to Ensure that the Non-Lawyer Assistant's Conduct Is Compatible With the Professional Obligations of the Lawyer - Colo. RPC 5.3(b)]

37. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein.

38. Colo. RPC 5.3(b) provides that a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.

39. Respondent violated Colo. RPC 5.3(b) by failing to adequately supervise his legal assistant, Anthony Espinosa, including by failing to verify what work Mr. Espinosa was doing on the Kennedys' immigration matter.

40. Respondent's conduct caused injury or potential injury to the Kennedys.

41. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 5.3(b).

WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof.

6

.~

CLAIM V

[A Lawyer Shall Not Engage In Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit Or Misrepresentation - Colo. RPC 8.4(c)]

42. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein.

43. Colo. RPC 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

44. By preparing bogus bank account numbers in response to interrogatories in small claims court, respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

45. The respondent knew his response to interrogatories was not true when he made it, or was reckless in failing to determine whether or not the response was true prior to making it.

46. The respondent had a selfish motive in making such statement; i.e., to prevent the Kennedys from being able to collect on their judgment against him.

47. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4 (c) .

WHEREFORE, the People pray that the respondent be found to have engaged in misconduct under C.R.C.P. 251.5 and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct as specified above; the respondent be appropriately disciplined for such misconduct; and the respondent be assessed the costs of this proceeding.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

~l.~

Lisa E. Frankel, #28634 Assistant Regulation Counsel John S. Gleason, #15011 Regulation Counsel Attorneys for Complainant

7

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful