Running head: LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 1

Law Case Study: The People of the State of Colorado V Milner, 35 P.3d 670 (Colo. 2001)

Student’s name

Institutional Affiliation
LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 2

Law Case Study: The People of the State of Colorado V Milner, 35 P.3d 670 (Colo. 2001)

1. Identify the claims set forth by the Colorado Court against Attorney Milner

The following were the claims that Colorado Court set forth against Attorney Milner:

a. The Nancy Aldridge Matter

Milner failed to act on behalf of the client whom she had entered appearance to represent

in a child support and visitation issue. As a result of Milner’s failure, the client suffered harm

including not obtaining visitation for her children, and being forced to find a substitute wage

assignment. Milner’s conduct was in violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct

(Colo. RPC) including rule 1.4 (a), 1.3, and rule 5.2.

b. The Darlene Cordova Matter

Darlene Cordova retained Milner to represent her in a divorce matter. Most of the initial

meetings were attended by Milner’s paralegal, Kemp. Thereafter, Milner billed a fee higher than

the amount Kemp had promised the client. Besides, Milner failed to reasonably inform Cordova

of the progress of the divorce matter including effectively communicating whether the service

was effected or not. Besides, Milner was accused of failing to supervise her paralegal (a

nonlawyer), who mistreated the client when she came to pick her file. Milner’s conduct was seen

to be in violation of Colo. RPC 1.5 (b), 1.4 (a), and 5.3 (b).

c. The Wilhelm Matter

Wilhelm retained Milner to recover money owed to him through a promissory note.

However, Milner failed to collect monies and subsequently refused to return a copy of the

promissory that had been issued to him by the client. In doing so, Milner is accused of violating

various rules under Colo. RPC including failure to communicate and failure to promptly deliver

funds and property that a client is entitled to receive.

LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 3

d. Chery Chavez Matter

Here, Milner was retained by Chavez to represent her in a divorce matter. In the matter,

Milner is accused of failing to inform the client on the status of the case, despite numerous

inquiries by the client. She also failed to file the divorce petition within timely period.

Furthermore, she did not supervise her paralegal who was abusive to the client. In doing so,

Milner violated several provisions of the Colo. RPC.

e. The Fisher Matter

In this matter, Milner entered appearance for a client with a divorce matter and who

needed a temporary restraining order and thereafter, a permanent order. However, Milner

neglected the legal matter by failing to submit the permanent order as ordered the court, and also

failed to provide a copy of permanent order to the client. She did not also supervise her paralegal

who was abusive to the client.

f. The Abrahamson Matter

In this matter, Abrahamson retained Milner to help her in recovering a payment of a loan.

However, Milner failed to take any steps to assist the client despite having agreed to do so. She

also failed to return the documents issued by client.

g. The Sherry Spargo Matter

Here, Milner failed to communicate promptly with client. She also delayed to file a wage

assignment for child support on behalf of the client. In doing so, Milner violated Colo. RPC 1.4

(a) and 1.3.

h. The Boroos Matter

LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 4

Milner was the personal representative in the estate of Hallinan where Mr. and Mrs.

Boroos were the beneficiaries. Milner abused her position as the personal representative and

attempted to deprive the beneficiaries of the property.

i. The Machina Matter

Machina retained Milner to enter appearance for her in a divorce action and paid an

advance fee of $1200. Kemp informed the client that he had served the client’s husband but

failed to issue the client with a copy of certified mail acceptance as proof of the service. Milner

also failed to inform the client the status of the divorce proceedings despite numerous requests

from the client. As a result, the client decided to terminate his attorney-client relationship with

Milner. However, Milner failed to promptly refund the client unearned fees after the client

terminated her services. Milner’s act was in contravention of Colo. RPC 1.5 (b).

j. The Janette Nelson Matter

In this matter, the claim was that Milner neglected the client even after entering into

attorney-client relationship where she agreed to help her investigate her brother’s death. She also

failed to take reasonable actions protect the client’s interest.

k. The Cindy Biggers Matter

In this matter, Milner was retained by Cindy Biggers for a fee of $969 to represent her in

a divorce and a bankruptcy case. Millner neglected the client’s matters even after entering into an

attorney-client relationship where she was to represent the client in divorce and bankruptcy

proceedings.

l. The Stephens Matter

LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 5

Milner disobeyed the obligations in bankruptcy court where she was entering appearance

for client with a bankruptcy case. As a result of Milner’s misconduct, she wasted the court’s

time, and harmed the client as well as the bankruptcy court.

m. The Venner Matter

Milner deliberately failed to deposit to the bankruptcy court the accounts for all fees and

expenses charged in the bankruptcy case despite being ordered to do so by the tribunal.

n. The Schmidt Matter

Milner failed to offer Schmidt competent representation by failing to represent the

client’s interests in court, arriving late during hearings and so on. She also failed to supervise her

paralegal who misrepresented facts about the client to the successor counsel.

2. What consequences did Attorney Milner suffer?

As a result of the numerous violations, Milner was discharged from practicing law for three

years. Her name was also removed from the roll of attorneys who are certified to practice law in

the state. Besides, she was instructed to reimburse Jannette Nelson, Cindy Biggers, David

Schmidt, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Boroos within one year. Furthermore, she could only be

eligible for readmission after complying with the Supreme Court orders.

3. What consequences did paralegal Kemp suffer?

Kemp did not suffer any consequences as per Supreme Court ruling, except for the fact that she

could have lost her job as a ripple effect of Milner losing his practicing license.

4. Discuss the violations Milner committed against each client.

I agree with the findings of this court. It was fair for the court to order Milner to reimburse the

clients the fees because of her misconduct. The objective of restitution is reinstatement. As it is

the negligence, recklessness, or misconduct of Milner that caused the harm they suffered, it is
LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 6

only fair that she reimburses the money. For instance, in the Nelson matter where she had been

paid $2,000 as fees for her professional services. Nevertheless, she did not take any action to act

on the client’s instructions. Therefore, she has to return the$2,000 as it is an unearned fee.

Notably, the defense that she was relying on Kemp failed because Milner, as the

employer, had the responsibility to ensure that her employee acted professionally towards the

client and observed any professional conduct expected of nonlawyers that work for lawyers.

Furthermore, the attorney-client relationship was between her and the clients. Therefore, it was

her responsibility to ensure that her agents do not violate the agreements she had entered with the

clients.

References
LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT 7

Donnes, C.T, (2016). Practical law office management (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.