P. 1
Doc 147

Doc 147

|Views: 2,212|Likes:
Published by Circuit Media

More info:

Published by: Circuit Media on May 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/18/2011

pdf

text

original

C

)

C_)

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO FILED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE FEB 1 5 2011
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:
DAVID M. FRIED
James S. Sudler, #08019 Case Number:
Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Complainant 1 1 PDJ 0 1 1
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 866-6400 ext. 6466
Fax No.: (303) 893-5302
David M. Fried, # 19238
Respondent
4600 South Syracuse
Suite 900
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (303) 256-6646
Fax No.: (303) 256-6648
STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING THE
RESPONDENT'S CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT . ........ F'E..PR.IJ MY '"S.<;$

On this ltjv day of~, 2011, James S. Sudler, Chief Deputy

Regulation Counsel and attorney for the complainant, and David M. Fried, the respondent, enter into the following stipulation, agreement, and affidavit containing the respondent's conditional admission of misconduct ("stipulation") and submit the same to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for his consideration.

RECOMMENDATION: Disbarment.

1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission,

was admitted to the bar of this court on March 21, 1990, and is registered as an attorney upon the official records of this court, registration no. 19238. The respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and the Presiding

Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings.

2. The respondent enters into this stipulation freely and voluntarily.

No promises have been made concerning future consideration, punishment, or lenience in the above-referenced matter. It is the respondent's personal decision, and the respondent affirms there has been no coercion or other intimidating acts by any person or agency concerning this matter.

3. These matters have not become public under the operation of

C.R.C.P. 2S1.31(c) as amended.

4. The respondent is familiar with the rules of the Colorado Supreme

Court regarding the procedure for discipline of attorneys and with the rights provided by those rules. The respondent acknowledges the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing on the above-referenced complaints. At any such hearing, the respondent would have the right to be represented by counsel, present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine the witnesses presented by the complainant. At any such formal hearing, the complainant would have the burden of proof and would be required to prove the charges contained in the complaints with clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, having full knowledge of the right to such a formal hearing, the respondent waives that right.

5. The respondent and the complainant specifically waive the right to

a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 2S1.22(c)(1).

6. The respondent affirms under oath that the following facts and

conclusions are true and correct:

(1) ARMIJO MATTER 10"01229

a. Liduina Armijo ("Ms. Armijo") retained the respondent on

December 4, 2009, to represent her in some post-decree divorce matters. The respondent had previously represented Ms. Armijo in her divorce.

b. Ms. Armijo met with the respondent on December 4, 2009. On

that day she paid the respondent $500.00 of a $1,000.00 retainer. Ms. Armijo paid the remaining $500.00 on January 4, 2010. At the December 4 meeting, Ms. Armijo gave the respondent a box containing her dissolution case file.

c. Ms. Armijo retained the respondent to do the following: Remove

her name from two mortgages that were awarded to her ex-husband in her divorce; get her parenting time back on schedule; obtain proof of her exhusband's completion of anger management courses; obtain credit card account clarification; and negotiate a new child support calculation effective May 2010.

2

C)

(__)

d. The respondent resolved the parenting time issue but did nothing

to resolve the other issues for which he was retained.

e. Ms. Armijo sent the respondent a fax on February 23, 2010

containing documentation about the issues that the respondent was supposed to be helping her with. When the respondent did not respond to the fax, she called him, emailed him and wrote him a number of letters. He did not reply to any of Ms. Armijo's requests for information.

f. . On December 29, 2009, the respondent sent Ms. Armijo a billing

statement indicating that he had earned $76.88 of her retainer.

g. The respondent did no further work on her case.

h. On March 30, 2010, Ms. Armijo sent an email to the respondent

requesting that he return her dissolution file and refund $923.00 of the unearned retainer. The respondent did not return the file or refund any money.

CLAIM ONE

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

1. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter in each of the following respects:

i. by failing to remove Ms. Armijo's name from two mortgages that were awarded to her ex-husband in her divorce;

11. by failing to obtain proof of Ms. Armijo's ex-husband's completion of anger management courses;

111. by failing to obtain credit card account clarification; and

IV. by failing to negotiate a new child support calculation effective May 2010.

j. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a' pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

k. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

3

C)

u

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

CLAIM TWO [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

m. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Armijo's repeated requests for information.

n. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

o. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM THREE

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

p. Ms. Armijo paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client.

q. Ms. Armijo was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting or

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

r. When Ms. Armijo requested such an accounting, respondent failed

to provide it to her and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1.1S(b).

s. Colo. RPC 1.1S(b) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the client, Ms. Armijo, any funds Ms. Armijo is entitled to receive.

t. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Ms. Armijo any

of the advanced retainer that Ms. Armijo paid him.

u. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Ms. Armijo's property to

her is also a violation of Colo. RPC 1.lS(b).

CLAIM FOUR

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

v. The respondent agreed to provide services to Ms. Armijo for a

retainer fee of $1,000.

w. Respondent earned $76.88 of the retainer fee.

x. By failing to return the remaining $923.12 Ms. Armijo had paid to

the respondent when he had not earned such fees because he did not complete

4

C)

C)

the services, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Ms. Armijo's benefit.

y. The respondent knew that he was keeping the $923.12 of funds he

had not earned, and knew that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them.

z. The respondent knew he did not have permission from the client to

use her funds for his personal purposes, and upon information and belief, respondent did so use his client's funds.

aa. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

bb. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

cc. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

(2) NYENKE MATTER 10-01707

a. Douglas Nyenke ("Mr. Nyenke") was referred to the respondent by

the Legal Club of America.

b. On February 9, 2010, Mr. Nyenke retained the respondent to

represent him in a parenting time and custody matter. The respondent did not provide Mr. Nyenke with a fee agreement. Mr. Nyenke paid the respondent $1,500.00 on February 9,2010.

c. On March 17, 2010, Mr. Nyenke received an email from the

respondent attaching a blank Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities.

d. . On March 18, 2010, Mr. Nyenke completed the petition and mailed

it back to the respondent.

e. On March 26, 2010, the respondent sent an email to Mr. Nyenke

informing him that his case had been flied with the court.

f. On April 22, 2010, the respondent told Mr. Nyenke that he had

served Mr. Nyenke's ex-girlfriend with a subpoena. The respondent indicated that he should know by April 26, 2010 when a status conference would be scheduled.

5

C)

g. From April 26 to May 27, 2010, Mr. Nyenke made numerous

attempts to contact the respondent by phone and email to learn the status of his case. The respondent did not respond to any of these requests for information.

h. On May 27, 2010, Mr. Nyenke sent an email to the respondent

terminating his services and requesting the return of his retainer and client file. The respondent did not reply to this email or return the retainer or client file.

1. From May 27,2010 to June 14,2010, Mr. Nyenke made numerous

additional attempts to contact the respondent by email and phone. The respondent did not reply.

j. The respondent never filed the Petition for Allocation of Parental

Responsibilities or subpoenaed Mr. Nyenke's ex-girlfriend.

CLAIM FIVE [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)

k. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Mr. Nyenke's repeated requests for information.

1. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

m. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM SIX

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

n. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter in each of the following respects:

1. by failing to file the Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities; and

.ii. by failing to serve Mr. Nyenke's ex-girlfriend with a subpoena.

o. The respondent was required to complete each of the specific tasks

described above. Each of these failures by the respondent constitutes a separate incident of lack of diligence and promptness as do all of them together.

6

(_)

p. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

q. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM SEVEN

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

s. Mr. Nyenke paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client.

t. Mr. Nyenke was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting or

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

u. When Mr. Nyenke requested such an accounting, respondent failed

to provide it to him and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1. 15(b).

v. Colo. RPC 1.15(b) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the client, Mr. Nyenke, any funds Mr. Nyenke is entitled to receive.

w. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Mr. Nyenke any

of the advanced retainer that Mr. Nyenke paid him.

x. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Mr. Nyenke's property to

him is also a violation of Colo. RPC 1. 15(b).

CLAIM EIGHT

[A Lawyer Shall Not Engage In Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit Or Misrepresentation (Knowing Conversion) - Colo. RPC S.4(c)]

y. The respondent agreed to provide services to Mr. Nyenke for a

retainer fee of $1,500 and respondent failed to do so.

z. By failing to return the $1,500 Mr. Nyenke had paid to the

respondent, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Mr. Nyenke's benefit.

aa. The respondent knew that he was keeping the $1,500 of funds he

had not earned. Respondent knew that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them, and knew that keeping such funds was not authorized.

7

C)

bb. The respondent did not have permission from the client to use his

funds for his personal purposes, and upon information and belief respondent did so use his client's funds.

cc. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

dd. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

ee. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

CLAIM NINE

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

ff. . The respondent's statement to Mr. Nyenke about his having filed

the Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities and about his having issued a subpoena to Mr. Nyenke's ex-girlfriend was false. The respondent never corrected this false statement.

gg. The respondent intentionally or knowingly or recklessly lied to Mr.

Nyenke about completing the Petition for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities and having issued a subpoena to Mr. Nyenke's ex-girlfriend.

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

(3) LIGHT MATTER 10-02125

a. April Light ("Ms. Light") retained the respondent in April 2009 to

file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The respondent told Ms. Light he would not start working on her matter until the entire retainer of $1,050.00 was paid. The respondent did not provide his client with a fee agreement.

b. Ms. Light paid the respondent $1,050.00 in a number of payments.

Of the $1,050.00, $750.00 was for attorney fees and $300.00 was for a filing fee. Ms. Light made her last payment in May 2009, at which time the respondent told her he would start working on her bankruptcy petition. Ms. Light provided the respondent the financial information and documentation he needed to file the petition.

c. From May to July 2009, Ms. Light called and ernailed the

respondent multiple times to find out the status of her filing and the date of

8

(_J

the creditors meeting. The respondent finally took her call in JUly. During that conversation, the respondent told Ms. Light that he would have to check on the date of the creditors' meeting but he thought it was sometime in August.

d. When respondent failed to call Ms. Light with the information she

requested, Ms. Light began calling him almost every day in August and September 2009. Ms. Light left numerous voicemail messages asking for her money back so she could retain a new lawyer. The respondent did not reply to the voicemail messages or refund Ms. Light's money.

e. During the last week of September 2009, Ms. Light called the

bankruptcy court and learned that her petition had never been filed.

f. Ms. Light continued attempting to contact the respondent without

success. On October 14, 2009, Ms. Light went to the respondent's new office and met with him. She demanded the return of her retainer because the respondent had done no work for her. The respondent assured her that the petition had been filed for some time. In fact, the petition was not filed until that day, October 14, 2009. The respondent returned Ms. Light's client file the following day.

g. The petition the respondent filed on October 14, 2009, was flagged

for a deficiency because a number of the documents Ms. Light had provided to the respondent in May had become out-of-date by the time the respondent filed the petition in October. These documents included Ms. Light's credit counseling certificate and evidence of wages. The court requires these documents be received by the debtor within 60 days of the bankruptcy case filing.

h. The respondent did not cure these deficiencies and the case was

dismissed on November 17, 2009

i. On November 18, 2009, the respondent filed a new Chapter 7

petition for Ms. Light. This petition, too, was flagged for deficiencies. Ms. Light had to obtain new wage documents and attend another credit counseling course, for which she paid an additional $50.00 fee.

J. On March 31, 2010, the court issued its discharge order. To date,

Ms. Light has never received a copy of the discharge order from the respondent.

k. The delay in filing caused Ms. Light to incur further debts from

May to November. As a result, she had to put her townhome up for a short sale in February 2010.

9

CLAIM TEN

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

1. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter in each of the following respects:

1. by failing to timely file Ms. Light's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition; and

11. by failing to cure the deficiencies in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition once it was filed; and

iii. by failing to provide Ms. Light with a copy of the court's discharge order.

m. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

n. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM ELEVEN [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

p. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Light's repeated requests for information.

q. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

r. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM TWELVE

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

s. The respondent's statement to Ms. Light about his having filed the

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition prior to October 14, 2009 was false.

10

t. The respondent knowingly lied to Ms. Light about filing her

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition in July 2009.

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

(4) BROWN MATTER 10-02279

a. Sarah Brown ("Ms. Brown") retained the respondent on February

16, 2010 to file a bankruptcy petition for her. Ms. Brown obtained the respondent's name through ARAG, her employee benefits prepaid legal service.

b. On February 16, 2010, Ms. Brown signed a fee agreement with the

respondent and paid him a flat fee of $1,800.00. The respondent explained that $300.00 of the retainer would be used to pay the bankruptcy filing fee. The remainder, $1,500.00, was for legal services provided by the respondent.

c. The respondent provided Ms. Brown a financial worksheet to fill

out. He advised her that she would be required to complete a money management course prior to filing. Ms. Brown completed the money management course on March 2,2010.

d. On March 6, 2010, Ms. Brown provided the completed financial

information worksheet to the respondent. The respondent reviewed the form and informed Ms. Brown that he needed two additional pieces of financial information related to her 401K.

e. The respondent and Ms. Brown agreed that he would file her

petition the last week of March 2010 because that was when her checking account had the least amount of money in it. The respondent advised her that after the petition was filed, she would receive a notice of a court date within six to eight weeks.

f. On March 15, 2010, Ms. Brown emailed the respondent the

financial information he requested on March 6, 2010.

g. On April 6, 2010, Ms. Brown called the respondent to confirm that

he had all the information he needed and had filed her petition. The respondent stated that everything was in order and the next step was for her to receive a summons in the mail from the courts assigning her a court date.

h. From May 19 to June 24, 2010, Ms. Brown phoned and emailed

respondent numerous times to find out the status of her filing. The respondent did not reply to her requests for information until June 24, 2010. The respondent told Ms. Brown that even though she had not received anything from the court, he had a court date in her client file, which was at

11

his home office. The respondent stated that he would call her back and let her know the date. He did not call her with this information.

i. From June 28 to July 12, 2010, Ms. Brown sent emails and left

voicemails for the respondent asking him to call her with information about the status of her filing. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

j. . On July 12, 2010, Ms. Brown contacted the Bankruptcy Court and

learned that no petition had ever been filed.

k. On July 13, 2010, Ms. Brown sent the respondent a letter

terminating his services and demanding the return of her $1,800.00 retainer and client file. The respondent did not refund the money or return her client file.

CLAIM THIRTEEN

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

1. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter by failing to file Ms. Brown's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition.

m. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

n. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM FOURTEEN [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

p. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Brown's repeated requests for information.

q. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

r. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

12

\ )'

"-

CLAIM FIFTEEN

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

s. Ms. Brown paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client.

t. Ms. Brown was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting or

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

u. When Ms. Brown requested such an accounting, respondent failed

to provide it to her and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1. 15(b).

v. Colo. RPC 1.15(b) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the cllent..Ms. Brown, any funds Ms. Brown is entitled to receive.

w. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Ms. Brown any

of the advanced retainer that Ms. Brown paid him.

x. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Ms. Brown's property to

her is also a violation of Colo. RPC 1. 15(b).

CLAIM SIXTEEN

[A Lawyer Shall Not Engage In Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit Or Misrepresentation (Knowing Conversion) - Colo. RPC S.4(c)]

y. The respondent agreed to provide services to Ms. Brown for a

retainer fee of $1,800.

z. Respondent did not earn any of the $1,800 retainer fee.

aa. By failing to return the $1,800 Ms. Brown had paid to the

respondent when he had not earned such fees because he did not complete the services, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Ms. Brown's benefit.

bb. The respondent knew that he was keeping the $1,800 of funds he

had not earned, he knew that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them. He knew that keeping such funds was not authorized.

cc. The respondent did not have permission from the client to use her

funds for his personal purposes and upon information and belief he did so use his client's funds.

13

~"---~---~~~~--

dd. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

ee. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

ff. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

CLAIM SEVENTEEN

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

gg. The respondent knowingly lied to Ms. Brown about his having filed

the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition. The respondent never corrected this false statement.

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

(5) WRAY MATTER 10-02324

a. Gary Wray ("Mr. Wray"] retained the respondent in June 2009 to

represent him in his divorce proceedings, Cynthia Wray v. Gary Wray, case no. 09DR1178 in Arapahoe County Court.

b. The respondent was referred to Mr. Wray through Signature Legal

Care. Mr. Wray lives in Oklahoma.

c. On June 7, 2009, Mr. Wray paid the respondent a $1,000.00

retainer. The respondent did not provide his client with a written fee agreement. Mr. Wray understood that the respondent's fee would be $70.00 per hour. When Mr. Wray received his billing statement he noticed that the respondent was billing him $150.00 per hour.

d. The respondent entered his appearance in Mr. Wray's divorce on

June 17, 2009. On June 18, 2009, the respondent appeared at a status conference.

e. On August 20, 2009, the respondent filed Mr. Wray's sworn

financial statement with the court. On August 21, 2009, the respondent appeared for a temporary orders hearing. Mr. Wray attended the hearing by phone.

f. The last contact Mr. Wray had from the respondent was in

December 2009.

14

()

'""-

(~)

g. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Wray paid the respondent an additional

$114.90 for attorney fees.

h. On February 23, 2010, Mr. Wray sent the respondent an email

asking about when he could expect to get a court date. The respondent did not reply.

i. . From February to May 2010, Mr. Wray continued to attempt to

contact the respondent by email and phone to get information about the status of his case. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

j. In May 2010, Mr. Wray was in Colorado so he went to the

respondent's office. The respondent was not there. Mr. Wray asked the receptionist to have the respondent contact him as soon as possible about the status of his case. The respondent did not contact Mr. Wray.

k. Sometime after Mr. Wray went to the respondent's office, he sent

the respondent an email again asking that the respondent contact him about his case. The respondent did not reply.

1. On June 23, 2010, Mr. Wray finally called the court to ask about

the status of his case. At that time, Mr. Wray informed the court that he had been unable to contact the respondent.

m. On July 1, 2010, opposing counsel reported to the court that his

office had also attempted to contact the respondent without success on numerous occasions to set a date for the pre-trial conference. The clerk set the pre-trial phone conference for July 16, 2010.

n. The respondent failed to appear at the July 16, 2010 conference.

Mr. Wray appeared by phone and told the court that he did not have the money to hire new counsel. The court set another status conference for August 31, 2010. The respondent did not appear.

o. The respondent did not withdraw from the case even though he

was suspended from the practice of law by this court effective August 26,2010.

p. . The respondent has not returned Mr. Wray's client file nor has he

accounted to Mr. Wray for what he did with all of his funds.

CLAIM EIGHTEEN

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

15

eJ

q. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter by failing to represent Mr. Wray and failing to appear in his divorce proceedings.

r. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

s. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM NINETEEN [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

u. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Mr. Wray's repeated requests for information and failure to communicate with Mr. Wray concerning the use of his funds.

v. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

w. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM TWENTY

[Declining or Terminating Representation - Colo. RPC 1.16(a)(I)]

x. Colo. RPC 1.16(a)(l) provides that a lawyer shall not represent a

client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

y. The respondent failed to withdraw from representation of Mr. Wray

after respondent's suspension of his license to practice law became effective August 26,2010.

z. By failing to withdraw the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.16(a) (1).

(6) DECKER MATTERI0-02357

a. On September 18, 2009, complainant Albert Decker ("Mr. Decker")

and his wife retained the respondent to represent them in a bankruptcy. The respondent did not provide a retainer agreement.

16

lJ

( )

<:»

b. Mr. Decker paid the respondent $1,500.00 for legal representation

and an additional $275.00 for a filing fee.

c. Due to a family emergency out-of-state, Mr. Decker was not in

Colorado until January 2010 and was unable to complete the financial paper work until his return.

d. Mr. Decker provided the completed financial paper work to the

respondent on June 4, 2010. On June 24, 2010, the respondent called Mr. Decker and said he was ready to file the petition but he needed Mr. and Mrs. Deckers' credit counseling certificates. Mr. Decker emailed the certificates to the respondent that day.

e. From June 4, 2010 to July 21, 2010, Mr. Decker made numerous

attempts to contact the respondent by phone and email to get a status update on the filing. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

f. On July 21, 2010, Mr. Decker searched the Bankruptcy court's

electronic records and learned that respondent had never filed the petition.

g. In August 2010, Mr. Decker sent the respondent a letter

demanding a refund of his retainer and directing him not to do any additional work. The respondent has not refunded Mr. Decker's money or returned his client file.

CLAIM TWENTY-ONE [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

h. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Mr. Decker's repeated requests for information.

i. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

J. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a}.

CLAIM TWENTY-TWO

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

k. Mr. Decker paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client until earned by the lawyer.

1. Mr. Decker was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting or

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

17

m. When Mr. Decker requested such an accounting, respondent failed

to provide it to him and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1. 15(b).

n. Colo. RPC 1.15(b) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the client, Mr. Decker, any funds Mr. Decker is entitled to receive.

o. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Mr. Decker any

of the advanced retainer that Mr. Decker paid him.

p. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Mr. Decker's property to

him is also a violation of Colo. RPC 1.15(b).

CLAIM TWENTY-THREE

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

q. The respondent agreed to provide services to Mr. Decker for a

retainer fee of $1,500, the filing fee, and he agreed to use $225 as a filing fee.

r. Respondent did not earn any of the $1,725 he was paid.

s. By failing to return the $1,725 Mr. Decker had paid to the

respondent when he had not earned such fees or paid the filing fee, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Mr. Decker's benefit.

t. The respondent knew that he was keeping the $1,725 of funds he

.had not earned and had not used. He knew that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them or paid a fee to the Court. He knew that keeping such funds was not authorized.

u. The respondent did not have permission from the client to use his

funds for his personal purposes.

v. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

w. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

x. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

18

~~~~.~~~--- --~~~-'--~---'--------~---------------

(7) DYE MATTER 10-02387

a. Frances "Noel" Dye ("Ms. Dye") retained the respondent on

September 3, 2009 to represent her in a matter involving the death of her son. Ms. Dye was referred to the respondent by ARAG, an employee legal referral group. Her son, Chase Dye, was killed in an automobile accident. Ms. Dye paid the respondent a $1,000.00 retainer to represent her in the matter. It appears from billing statements respondent sent to complainant that the fee arrangement was an hourly fee at the rate of $150.00. The fee arrangement was not a contingent fee.

b. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident resulting in

Chase Dye's death was insured by Allstate. Complainant's daughter-in law, Diana Poulson ("Ms. Poulson") was represented by Vance Larimer, Esq (Mr. Larimer"). Ms. Poulson settled with Allstate for the policy limits of $100,000. Complainant claimed that she and her ex-husband were owed a portion of that settlement from Ms. Poulson.

c. In late February 2010, complainant, her ex-husband and Ms.

Poulson executed a settlement waiver and release agreement. Respondent also signed this settlement agreement. Complainant and her ex-husband agreed to a settlement of $15,000.00 from Ms. Poulson.

d. At some point respondent contacted Mr. Larimer and asked that

the check be made out to the respondent's trust account and not to Ms. Dye and her ex-husband.

e. On June 1, 2010, Mr. Larimer mailed the $15,000.00 settlement

check to the respondent. Per the respondent's specific instructions, the check was made out to David M. Fried P.C. Trust Account.

f. Respondent did not notify complainant that he received this check.

On about June 28, 2010, Ms. Dye learned that this check had been sent to respondent. She learned this from Ms. Poulson and Mr. Larimer when they contacted her about their trying to contact respondent. Ms. Dye had also being trying to contact respondent to learn what was occurring. She had no success. The last communication Ms. Dye had with respondent was on May 11,2010.

g. On June 30, 2010, Ms. Dye sent a certified letter to the respondent

notifying him that she had been trying to contact him without success. Ms. Dye asked the respondent to forward a $15,000.00 check made out to her and her ex-husband. The respondent did not reply to this request.

h. . According to bank records obtained by the Office of Attorney

Regulation Counsel, respondent has a trust account at Wells Fargo. On June 7, 2010, the check sent by Mr. Larimer to respondent was deposited into

19

C)

respondent's trust account. Immediately before he deposited that check for $15,000.00 the balance in the account was $1,500.00. After depositing the funds the balance in respondent's trust account was $16,500.00.

i. Respondent made various withdrawals from this trust account

such that the balance by August 31, 2010 was $1,978.53. In that same time period respondent had made deposits amounting to a total of 4,216.23. Nevertheless, the ending balance indicates that respondent was using funds belonging to complainant.

J. Among the payments made by respondent from his trust account

after he deposited funds belonging to complainant were personal expenses such as cash withdrawals, AT&T payments, an Xcel Energy payment, and a Comcast payment. Respondent had earlier been warned by members of OARC that such personal expenses being paid out of his trust account were improper.

k. OARC personnel attempted to contact respondent in writing and by

phone on various occasions about this matter with no success. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

CLAIM TWENTY-FOUR [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

1. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Dye's repeated requests for information.

m. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

n. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM TWENTY-FIVE

[Failure to Deliver Funds - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

o. Ms. Dye and her ex-husband were entitled to receive from the

respondent the $15,000 settlement check.

p. When Ms. Dye requested the settlement check, respondent failed to

provide it to her in violation of Colo. RPC 1.15(b).

CLAIM TWENTY-SIX

[A Lawyer Shall Not Engage In Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit Or Misrepresentation (Knowing Conversion) - Colo. RPC S.4(c)]

20

C)

( )

'.~

q. The respondent arranged to have Ms. Dye's settlement check made

out to his trust account and deposited that check in his trust account, and used those funds for personal expenses.

r. Respondent refunded to Ms. Dye $15,000 but only after Ms. Dye

complained to OARC and OARC requested respondent to pay Ms. Dye and her husband.

s. By failing to pay the $15,000 to Ms. Dye and using the funds for

personal expenses, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Ms. Dye's benefit.

t. The respondent did not have permission from Ms. Dye to use the

settlement monies for his personal purposes.

u. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership of

these funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

v. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

w. The foregoing conduct of the respondent establishes grounds for

discipline as provided for in C.R.C.P. 251.5 and violates Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

CLAIM TWENTY-SEVEN

(It Is Professional Misconduct for a Lawyer to Commit a Criminal Act that Reflects Adversely on the Lawyer's Honesty, Trustworthiness, or Fitness as a Lawyer in Other Respects - Colo. RPC 8.4(b)

x. Colo. RPC 8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct for a

lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

y. The respondent engaged in criminal conduct by not notifying Ms.

Dye that he had received the $15,000 settlement check; having Ms. Dye's $15,000 settlement check made payable to his trust account; and using the proceeds of the $15,000 settlement check for his personal expenses. These criminal acts are in violation ofC.R.S. §18-4-401. They reflect adversely on the respondent's honesty, trustworthiness and fitness in all other respects.

z. The respondent was charged with Theft and pleaded guilty. He

received a deferred judgment and sentence on conditions. The respondent has returned $15,000.00 to Ms. Dye.

21

C)

(J

aa. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) and

C.R.C.P. 251.5(b).

(8) BAILEY MATTER 10-02410

a. Kathy Bailey ("Ms. Bailey") was referred to the respondent through

"My Advisor," a legal referral agency.

b. On January 27, 2010, Ms. Bailey retained the respondent to file a

Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for her. She paid him $1,800.00 by check. The respondent told her $600.00 was for a filing fee and $1,200.00 was his fee. The respondent did not provide a fee agreement.

c. At the January 27, 2010 meeting, the respondent gave Ms. Bailey

financial forms to fill out.

d. Ms. Bailey met with the respondent again in February 2010 and

provided him with the completed forms. The respondent reviewed the forms and told her everything looked complete. The respondent told Ms. Bailey he would file the petition as soon as possible and let her know the date when the meeting of creditors was scheduled.

e. Ms. Bailey did not hear from the respondent for about four weeks

so she sent him an email asking for information about the status of the filing. On March 31, 2010, the respondent replied by email, stating that he would be done filing the petition in about a week.

f. . From April to August 2010, Ms. Bailey called and emailed the

respondent numerous times to ask about the status of her filing. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

g. In mid-August 2010, Ms. Bailey received a copy of the Notice of

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case Meeting of Creditors & Deadlines mailed from the bankruptcy court. The notice indicated that the respondent filed the petition on August 1, 2010, seven months after she provided him with the information he needed to file it.

h. After she received the notice of the creditors meeting, Ms. Bailey

called the respondent and spoke with him. The respondent told Ms. Bailey everything was fine with her filing. He said he would appear with Ms. Bailey at the creditors meeting scheduled for September 3, 2010 even though the respondent knew he would be unable to appear because the three-year suspension of his license to practice law would go into effect on August 26, 2010.

22

C)

( )

"-./

CLAIM TWENTY-EIGHT

[A Lawyer Shall Act With Reasonable Diligence and Promptness in Representing a Client - Colo. RPC 1. 3]

i. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter by failing to timely file Ms. Bailey's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition.

J. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

k. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM TWENTY-NINE [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

m. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Bailey's repeated requests for information.

n. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

o. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM THIRTY

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

p. The respondent's statement to Ms. Bailey that he would appear

with her at the creditors meeting scheduled for September 3, 2010, even though the respondent knew he would be unable to appear because his threeyear suspension would go into effect on August 26,2010, was false.

q. The respondent knowingly lied to Ms. Bailey about being able to

represent her at the creditors meeting constitutes conduct involving deceit and/ or dishonesty.

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

23

C)

( )

. " __ .J

(9) PITTMAN MATTER 10~02698

a. Diane Pittman ("Ms. Pittman") retained the respondent on May 12,

2010 to represent her and her husband in a civil lawsuit against a landscape company. Ms. Pittman was referred to the respondent by AARP Legal Services.

b. . Ms. Pittman paid the respondent a $1,000.00 retainer. The

respondent directed Ms. Pittman to obtain certain documentary evidence to support her damages claim. Ms. Pittman provided these materials to the respondent on July 9, 2010.

c. From July 13 to August 16, 2010, Ms. Pittman left nine voicemail

messages for the respondent asking for information regarding the status of her case. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

d. On August 16, 2010, Ms. Pittman sent the respondent a letter

demanding the refund of her retainer and case file since the respondent had done no work on her matter. The respondent did not reply to the letter nor did he return Ms. Pittman's unearned retainer or her case file.

CLAIM THIRTY-ONE

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

e. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter by failing to represent Ms. Pittman in her civil matter.

f. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

g. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM THIRTY-TWO [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

i. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Pittman's repeated requests for information.

j. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

24

C)

(J

k. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM THIRTY-THREE

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.15(b)]

1. Ms. Pitman paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client.

m. Ms. Pittman was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting of

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

n. . When Ms. Pittman requested such an accounting, respondent

failed to provide it to her and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1.1S(b).

o. Colo. RPC 1.1S(b) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the client, Ms. Pittman, any funds Ms. Pittman is entitled to receive.

p. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Ms. Pittman

any of the advanced retainer Ms. Pittman paid him.

q. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Ms. Pittman's property to

her is also a violation of Colo. RPC 1.1S(b).

CLAIM THIRTY-FOUR

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

r. The respondent agreed to provide services to Ms. Pittman for a fee

of $1,000.00.

s. Respondent did not earn any of the $1,000.00 fee.

t. By failing to return the $1,000 fee Ms. Pittman had paid to the

respondent when he had not earned such fees because he did not complete the services, the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Ms. Pittman's benefit.

u. The respondent knew that he was keeping the $1,000 of funds he

had not earned. He knew that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them. He knew that keeping such funds was not authorized.

25

(_J

CJ

v. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

w. Through his conversion or misappropriation of client funds, the

respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

x. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

(10) SCHMITZ MATTER 10-01994

a. Marne Schmitz CCMs. Schmitz") was referred to the respondent by

ARAG, a legal referral group. Ms. Schmitz lives in Kenmore, Washington.

b. Ms. Schmitz contacted the respondent in mid-December 2009

about representing her in a medical malpractice matter. Ms. Schmitz and the respondent agreed to a $1,500.00 fee.

c. On December 22, 2009, the respondent sent Ms. Schmitz an

hourly fee agreement for her signature. The respondent's listed hourly fee was $200.00.

d. After December 22, 2009, the respondent called Ms. Schmitz two

or three times a day to remind her to send the signed contract and fee to him. Ms. Schmitz mailed the signed contract and a check for $1,500.00 to the respondent on January 11, 2010.

e. On February 4, 2010, the respondent requested that Ms. Schmitz

send him a chronological medical history. He also asked that she contact her current physician for medical records and inquire whether the physician would speak to the respondent directly. Ms. Schmitz completed these tasks by February 18, 2010.

f. From February 18, 2010 through the first three weeks of March

2010, Ms. Schmitz tried to contact the respondent numerous times by email and phone to ask about the status of her case. The respondent did not reply to any of her requests for information.

g. On March 23, 2010, Ms. Schmitz sent the respondent an email

asking whether he was still interested in representing her. The respondent replied by email, stating that he would call her the following day. He did not call or email her.

h. From March 23 to May 12, 2010, Ms. Schmitz attempted to contact

the respondent by phone and email numerous times to ask about the status of

26

'J

~.

CJ

her case. She left multiple messages asking the respondent to call her about her case. The respondent did not reply to any of these requests for information.

i. On May 12, 2010, Ms. Schmitz emailed the respondent and asked

for the return of her retainer since he had done no work on her case. He did not reply to the email nor has he refunded her money.

CLAIM THIRTY-FIVE

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

j. The respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness and neglected the client's legal matter by failing to represent Ms. Schmitz in her civil matter.

k. The respondent knew or should have known that his lack of

diligence and promptness continued to occur over a period of months and involved a pattern and practice of lack of diligence and promptness.

1. The respondent's lack of diligence and promptness caused injury

or potential injury to the client.

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

CLAIM THIRTY-SIX [Communications - Colo. RPC 1.4(a)]

n. The respondent failed to comply with his duty of communication

by failing to respond to Ms. Schmitz's repeated requests for information.

o. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to

communicate adequately with his client over an extended period of months.

p. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a).

CLAIM THIRTY-SEVEN

[Failure to render accounting - (Colo. RPC 1.1S(b)]

q. Ms. Schmitz paid respondent an advanced retainer and such a

retainer is property of the client.

r. Ms. Schmitz was entitled to receive a prompt and full accounting of

what respondent did with this advanced retainer.

27

(j

CJ

s. When Ms. Schmitz requested such an accounting, respondent

failed to provide it to her and has never done so in violation of Colo. RPC 1.15(b).

t. Colo. RPC 1.15(h) also requires that a lawyer promptly deliver to

the client, Ms. Schmitz, any funds Ms. Schmitz is entitled to receive.

u. Respondent also has failed to deliver and return to Ms. Schmitz

any of the advanced retainer Ms. Schmitz paid him.

v. Respondent's conduct in failing to deliver Ms. Schmitz's property to

her is also. a violation of Colo. RPC 1.15(b).

CLAIM THIRTY-EIGHT

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

w. The respondent agreed to provide services to Ms. Schmitz for a fee

of$1,500.

x. Respondent did not earn any of the $1,500 fee Ms. Schmitz gave

him.

y. By failing to return the $1,500 fee Ms. Schmitz had paid to him,

the respondent exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Ms. Schmitz's benefit.

z. . The respondent knew that he was keeping the $1,500 of funds he

had not earned. He knew such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them. He knew that keeping such funds was not authorized.

aa. Through the unauthorized exercise of dominion or ownership these

funds, the respondent knowingly converted or misappropriated such client funds.

bb. The respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c).

7. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, the respondent agrees to pay costs in

the amount of $276.00 (a copy of the statement of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit A) incurred in conjunction with this matter within thirty (30) days after acceptance of the stipulation by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, made payable to Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. The respondent agrees that statutory interest shall accrue from the date that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepts this stipulation. Should the respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within (30) days,

28

(J

CJ

the respondent specifically agrees to be responsible for all additional costs and expenses, such as reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection incurred by the complainant in collecting the above stated amount. The complainant may amend the amount of the judgment for the additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, which identifies this paragraph of the stipulation and the respondent's default on the payment.

8. This stipulation is premised and conditioned upon acceptance of

the same by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. If for any reason the stipulation is not accepted without changes or modification, then the admissions, confessions, and stipulations made by the respondent will be of no effect. Either party will have the opportunity to accept or reject any modification. If either party rejects the modification, then the parties shall be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing; and no confession, stipulation, or other statement made by the respondent in conjunction with this offer to accept discipline of three- years may be subsequently used. If the stipulation is rejected, then the matter will be heard and considered pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18.

9. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has notified or will notify

shortly after the parties sign this agreement, the complaining witnesses in the matter{s) of the proposed disposition.

PRIOR DISCIPLINE

10. In December 1992, the respondent received a letter of admonition in 92-00045, see Exhibit 2; in March 1995, respondent received a letter of admonition in 94-00942, see Exhibit 3; and in June 1995, respondent was suspended for one month in 95SA193, see Exhibit 4. 1

11. In July of 2010, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for-a period of three years in case nos. 10PDJOI0 and 10PDJ072, see Exhibit 5.

ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINE

12. Pursuant to American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 1991 and Supp. 1992 ("ABA Standards"), §3.0, the Court should consider the following factors generally:

a.The duty violated: Respondent violated his duty of diligence in representation of his clients; his duty of communication of his clients; and his duty to keep appropriate trust account

1 All of respondent's prior private discipline was made public in subsequent public disciplinary matters.

29

(_J

C)

records and documents.

b. The lawyer's mental state: knowing.

c. The actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct: The respondent caused injury to various clients as he admits above. For those clients to whom he did not cause actual injury, respondent admits that he caused potential injury.

d. The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors: Factors in aggravation which are present include: ABA Standards §9.22(a), prior disciplinary offenses; ABA Standards §9.22{c) a pattern of misconduct; ABA Standards §9.22(d) multiple offenses; and ABA Standards §9.22(i) substantial experience in the practice of law. Factors in mitigation include: ABA Standards §9.32(c) personal or emotional problems and ABA Standards §9.32(1) remorse.

13. Pursuant to ABA Standard §4.11 disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

14. Pursuant to ABA Standard §4.61 disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a client.

15. Pursuant to ABA Standard §4.41(b} disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

16. Pursuant to ABA Standard §5.11(a} disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which includes theft.

17.' Considering all of the factors described above, as applied to this case, disbarment is appropriate.

CONDITION

18. As a condition of any application for readmission to the practice of law, respondent shall have made appropriate restitution to all clients mentioned in this stipulation and to any other clients to whom he owes money. Additionally, respondent shall have reimbursed the Colorado Fund for Client

30

(J

o

Protection for any sums it paid out to clients or former clients of respondent.

RECOMMENDATION FOR AND CONSENT TO DISCIPLINE

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereto recommend that disbarment be imposed upon the respondent. The respondent consents to the imposition of discipline of disbarment. The parties request that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge order that the effective date of such discipline be immediate upon of entry of the order.

David M. Fried, the respondent, and James S. Sudler, attorney for the complainant, acknowledge by signing this document that they have read and reviewed the above and request the Presiding Disciplinary Judge to accept the stipulation as set forth above.

David M. Fried

4600 South Syracuse, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80237

Telephone: 303-832-4435

STATE OF COLORADO

ss.

COUNTY OF _

Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of _

2011, by David M. Fried, respondent.

Witness my hand and official seal.

My commission expires: _I __ I_

Notary Public

c

James S. Sudler

Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 866-6400 x 6466

Attorney for Complainant

31

"f:::.I VV..LI uv~

o

o

ToJ/I1/e. ..>v/;{~ Fax#: 30"3 ;P;.:5 G'JOz.

From: James M. Edwards

FAX TRANSMISSION JAMES M. EDWARDS, P.C. 1401 17th Street, Suite 330

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 293-8191

Fax: (303) 292-0924

Date: t.-j;y h

P~lgCS: dJ-. , including this cover sheet.

Subject: fie IffD

The documents accompanying this teJecopy transmission may contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone to arrange for return of the documcn Is to this office.

Original document will _

will not X

be sent.

()

o

Protection for any sums it paid out to clients. o~ former clients of respondent.

RECOMMENDATION FOR AND CONSENT TO DISCIPLINE

Based on the foregoing, the parties hereto recommend that disbarment be imposed upon the rcspondcn t. The respondent consents to the imposition of discipline of disbarment. The pai+ics request that the Presiding Disciplinary .Judge order that. the effective dale of such discipline be immediate upon of entry of the order.

David M, Fried, the respondent, and .Jarncs S. Sudler, attorney for the compla inuut , ackuowlcdgc by ~igl1ing I.his t]m:ull1l:ui. that. they hGlVC read and reviewed the above and request the Presiding Disciplinary .Judge to accept the stipulation as set forth above.

(; ... ,

.,~'.>'~'. 'C, L,; "'-'..I.U,) ~.;.i..> . ..i=,~ David M. (-t'ried

I) 600 Soul h Syracuse, Suit.1: 900 Denver, CO 80237

Telephone: 303-R32-4435

STATE OF COLORADO

ss.

COUNTY OF .

Sub:-;(:ribed and xwor-n to before me this 2011~ by David M. Fried, respondent.

clay of .

Witnes« my hand and official seal.

My cornmiseion expires; _I __ I_

-. ... "' ..... _ ..

Notary Public

.Jarnes S. Sudler

Chief Deputy Regulation Coun sc I 1560 Broadway, SuiLc 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 866-6400 x 6466

Attorney [or Complainant

[=-

JOSHUA ROBINSON

Notary Public State of Colorado

31

¥'o""-. ~'

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 675
DENVER, CO 80202
Complainant: Case Number:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO I1PDJOll
Respondent:
DAVID M. FRIED
ORDER APPROVING CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT
AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 251.22 This matter is before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court") on a "Stipulation, Agreement and Affidavit Containing the Respondent's Conditional Admission of Misconduct" ("Stipulation") filed by James S. Sudler, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"), and David M. Fried ("Respondent") on February 15, 2011. In this stipulation, the parties waive their right to a hearing under C.R.C.P. 251.22(c).

The Court, having reviewed the case file and the stipulation, and being fully advised of the issues presented, ORDERS the following:

1. The stipulation is accepted and approved.

2. DAVID M. FRIED, Attorney Registration No. 19238, is DISBARRED from the practice of law.

3. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, Respondent shall pay costs incurred in conjunction with this matter in the amount of $276.00 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Costs are payable to the Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. Statutory interest shall accrue from the date of this order. Should Respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within thirty (30) days, Respondent shall be responsible for all additional costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the People in collecting the above-stated amount. The People may amend the amount of the judgment for additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Court.

4. As a condition of any application for readmission to the practice of law, Respondent shall pay restitution to all clients mentioned in the Stipulation and to any other clients to whom he owes money, and Respondent shall also reimburse the Colorado Fund for Client Protection for any sums it paid out to clients or former clients of Respondent.

Tms ORDER IS ENTERED THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DISBARMENT IS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011.

uJ~k~

WILLIAM R. LUCERO

PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

2

~~'spondent David M. Fried

c/o James M. Edwards 1401 17th Street, Suite 330 Denver, CO 80202

Via First Class Mail

Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel James S. Sudler

1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202

Via Hand Delivery

American Bar Association c/o Nadine Ctgnoni

Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800

Denver, CO 80202

Via Hand Delivery

Board of Continuing Legal Education Karen Bradley

Assistant Executive Director 1560 Broadway, Suite 1820 Denver, CO 80202

Via Hand Delivery

Colorado Attorney Registration Elvia Mondragon

1560 Broadway, Suite 1810 Denver. CO 80202

Via Hand Delivery

Colorado Bar Association Charles Turner

Executive Director

1900 Grant Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80203-4309

Via First Class Mail

Colorado Supreme Court Susan Festag

101 West Colfax Avenue, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202

Via Hand Delivery

IRS, Office of Professional Responsibility Attn: Kathy Gibbs

SE: OPR, 1111. Constitutional Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20224

Via First Class Mail

Martindale Hubbell Law Directory Attn: Joe Rudy, Rating Consultant P.O. Box 31

New Providence, NJ 07974

Via First Class Mail

Metro Lawyer Referral Service

3000 South Jamaica Court, Suite 120 Aurora, CO 80014

Via First Class Mail

Supreme Court of the United States Perry Thompson

Admissions Office

1 First Street Northeast Washington, D.C. 20543

Via First Class Mail

United States Bankruptcy Court Brad Bolton

721 19th Street, Room 117 Denver, CO 80202-2508

Via First Class Mail

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street

Denver, CO 80257

Via First Class Mail

United States District Court, District of Colorado

Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse Mark Fredrickson

901 19th Street, Room A-lOS Denver, CO 80294-3589

Via First Class Mail

u.s, Department of Justice,

Executive Office of Immigration Review Jennifer J. Barnes, Disciplinary Counsel 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600

Falls Church, VA 22041

Via First Class Mail

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->