P. 1
Petition for Injunction

Petition for Injunction

|Views: 2,721|Likes:
Published by Circuit Media

More info:

Published by: Circuit Media on Jun 03, 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

01/04/2013

pdf

text

original

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 101 W. Colfax Ave.

, Suite 800 Denver, Colorado 80202 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW, 1 OUPLO58 Petitioner: THE PEOPLE COLORADO

FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT

MAY 232011
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Christopher T. Ryan, Clerk

OF

THE

STATE

OF A COURT USE ONLY A Case Number:

11SA154
Respondent: DOUGLAS BRUCE Kim E. Ikeler, #15590 Assistant Regulation Counsel Attorney for Petitioner 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, CO 80202 Phone Number: (303) 866-6400 Fax Number: (303) 893-5302 Email: k.ikelexJcsc state. co .US
.

PETITION FOR INJUNCTION

Petitioner,

through the undersigned Assistant Regulation

Counsel, and upon authorization pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234(a),l respectfully requests that the Colorado Supreme Court issue an order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234 directing the Respondent to show The Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) Committee authorized the filing of this Petition on May 13, 2011.

cause why he should not be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law. As grounds therefor, counsel states as follows: Jurisdiction
1.

The Respondent, Douglas Bruce, is not licensed to practice

law in the state of Colorado.
2. 3.

Respondent Bruce is an inactive California attorney. Respondent’s last known address is P.O. Box 26018,

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80936.
4.

Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, as

described below. Factual Allegations
5.

Respondent Bruce filed an action against the City of

Colorado Springs, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief regarding approval of language for a ballot initiative. Douglas Bruce v. City of Colorado 10CV260. Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No.

The case was assigned to Judge David Gilbert, who

denied the requested relief on June 18, 2010.
6.

On July 29, 2010, Respondent Bruce filed an almost The

identical complaint, again in El Paso County District Court.

2

case was assigned to Judge Theresa Cisneros. order in open court dismissing the case. order stated as follows:

She entered an

Judge Cisneros’ minute

8/9/10: CISNEROS: CMD: NETWORK 1:50 PM HEAR: TF PRO SE; ATIY WHITE FOR DEF; HEARING REGARDING PTF’S COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF; ATTY WHITE MOVES TO DISMISS THE CASE BECAUSE PTF FILED THE EXACT COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 10CV260 IN DIVISION 7. ARGUMENTS; COURT GRANTS CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS. PTF’S REMEDY WAS TO APPEAL JUDGE GILBERT’S RULING, NOT TO FILE A NEW CASE. THIS CASE IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. JUDGE CISNEROS/TMC
7.

Respondent Bruce was present in court when Judge

Cisneros entered her order. Respondent stated words to the effect that he was going to have other members of his political action committee file similar lawsuits.
8.

On August 12, 2010, Helen Collins, an ally of Respondent

Bruce, filed a complaint nearly identical to the complaints in the Bruce actions. Helen Collins u. City of Colorado Springs, El Paso

County District Court, Case No. 10CV343 (the “Collins case”). The case was assigned to Judge David Miller. 9. On the same day, August 12, 2010, Douglas Stinehagen,

another ally of Respondent Bruce, filed a complaint nearly identical

3

to the complaint in the Collins case. Douglas Stinehagen v. City of Colorado Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No. 10CV344 (the “Stinehagen case”). Crowder.
10.

The case was assigned to Judge Ronald

On August 20, 2010, Judge Crowder held a status

conference in the Stinehagen case. The City Attorney brought the nearly identical complaint in the Collins case to Judge Crowder’s attention. Upon seeing that the two complaints were essentially

identical, Judge Crowder asked Mr. Stinehagen: “Who wrote your complaint?” Mr. Stinehagen answered: “Mr. Bruce.”
11.

The City Attorney moved for consolidation of the Collins Mr. Stinehagen objected. Judge

case and the Stinehagen case.

Crowder asked Mr. Stinehagen whether he wanted to file a brief on the issue. From the audience, Respondent Bruce in a loud voice

answered “No.”
12.

The

Collins

case

and

the

Stinehagen

case

were

consolidated before Judge Miller. consolidated cases. hearing. present.

The City moved to dismiss the

On August 25, 2010, Judge Miller held a

Ms. Collins, Mr. Stinehagen and Respondent Bruce were

4

13.

In answer to the Judge’s questions, Mr. Stinehagen

admitted that he did not have legal training and that he had not drafted his complaint.
14.

Ms. Collins asked for leave to have Respondent come

forward and address the Court on the question of whether her complaint raised the same issue as the complaints in the Bruce actions.
15.

Judge Crowder declined to allow Respondent Bruce to

make legal argument.
16.

Despite the Judge’s direction, Respondent began to speak

The Judge warned him: “Mr. Bruce, you are not to be commenting on the case, unless you want to practice law without a license.”
17.

Respondent Bruce then began writing notes to Ms. Collins

and Mr. Stinehagen.
18.

Mr.

Stinehagen read from the notes to the Judge,

distinguishing between the Bruce cases and his case.
19. 20.

The Judge took the notes and marked them as an Exhibit. The Judge made a record that Respondent had written

notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, trying to tell them what to say.

5

21. 22.

Respondent Bruce offered to testify as an expert witness. The Judge asked Respondent whether he wished to be

joined in the consolidated cases. a.) Respondent Bruce then spoke at length, including

concerning the supposed differences between the Bmce case before Judge Gilbert and the consolidated Collins and Stinehagen cases. b.) Respondent Bruce argued that Article XX, §9 of the

Constitution applied to the injunctive and declaratory relief requested by Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, rather than Article XX, §6, as Judge Gilbert had ruled. c.) Respondent Bruce argued that the City Charter,

state statutes and the Constitution supported the relief requested in the Collins and Stinehagen complaints.
23.

Respondent

Bruce

then

addressed

the

question

of

collateral estoppel. a.) Respondent argued that he was not in privity with As a result, their cases

Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen.

were not barred by collateral estoppel based in Judge Gilbert’s dismissal of the first Bruce case.

6

b.)

He

also contended that Ms.

Collins’ and Mr.

Stinehagen’s right to seek redress of violations of their constitutional rights should not be foreclosed on the basis that he (Respondent) previously had filed a similar suit.
24.

After

concluding

his

remarks,

Respondent

Bruce

continued to hand notes to Ms. Collins, instructing her on what to say. Request for Relief
25.

The unauthorized practice of law includes but is not

limited to an unlicensed person’s actions as a representative in protecting, enforcing or defending the legal rights and duties of another and/or counseling, advising and assisting that person in connection with legal rights and duties. See, People v. Shell, 148

P.3d 162 (Cob. 2006); and Denver Bar Assn. v. P.UC., 154 Cob. 273, 391 P.2d 467 (1964). In addition, preparation of legal

documents for others by an unlicensed person, other than solely as a typist, is the unauthorized practice of law, unless the Colorado Supreme Court has authorized such action in a specific

circumstance.

Title Guaranty v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 135 Cob. 423, In particular, the activities that are

312 P. 2d 1011 (1957).

7

prohibited involve the lay exercise of legal discretion, such as advice to clients regarding legal matters, preparation of court pleadings

and appearance in court.
(Cob. 2010).
26.

People v. Adams, 243 P.3d 256, 266

Respondent Bruce

an unlicensed person

engaged in

the unauthorized practice of law by drafting Complaints to be filed by Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen in their own names.
27.

Respondent Bruce further engaged in the unauthorized

practice of law by making legal argument to Judge Miller at the August 25, 2010 hearing, in opposition to the motion of the City to dismiss the Collins and Stinehagen cases on grounds of collateral estoppels, and by passing notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen directing them what argument to make.
28.

The Respondent does not fall within any of the statutory

or case law exceptions. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this court issue an order directing the Respondent to show cause why the Respondent should not be enjoined from engaging in any unauthorized practice of law; thereafter that the court enjoin this Respondent from the practice of law, or in the alternative that this court refer this matter

8

to

a

hearing

master

for

determination

of

facts

and

recommendations to the court on whether this Respondent should be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore,

Petitioner requests that the court impose a fine for each incident of unauthorized practice of law, not less than $250.00 and not more than $1,000.00; award costs to the Petitioner, and any other relief deemed appropriate by this court. Respectfully submitted this of May 2011.

Kim Assistant Regulation Counsel Attorney for Petitioner

9

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)//-->