You are on page 1of 11


Denver, Colorado 80202


NQV 022011

Complainant: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Respondent: DARRELL EUGENE NULAN Adam J. Espinosa, #33937 Assistant Regulation Counsel Attorney for Complainant 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver Colorado 80202 Te]ephone: (303) 866-6400, ext. 6478 Fax No.: (303) 893-5302 a.espinosa@csc state. Co. US





STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING THE RESPONDENT’S CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT On this 2nd day of November, 2011, Adam J. Espinosa, Assistant Regulation Counsel and attorney for the complainant, and Darrell E. Nulan, Respondent who is represented by attorneys Gary a. Blum, Esq. and Jessica ED. McOawn. Esq. in these proceedings, enter into the following stipulation, agreement, and affidavit containing Respondents conditional admission of misconduct (“stipulation”) and submit the same to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for his consideration. RECOMMENDATION: DISBARMENT 1. Respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this court on July 23, 1975, and is registered as an attorney upon the official records of this court, registration no. 06580. Respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings. 2. 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 Respondent’s persona’ decision, and Respondent affirms there has been no coercion or other intimidating acts

by any person or agency concerning this matter. 3. This matter has become public under the operation of C.RC.P. 251.31(c) as amended. 4. Respondent is familiar with the rules of the Colorado Suprem e Court regarding the procedure for discipline of attorneys and with the rights provided by those rules. Respondent acknowledges the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing on the above-referenced complaint. At any such hearing. Respondent would have the right to be represented by counsel, present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine the witnes ses 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 complaint with clear and convincing evidence, Nonetheless, having full knowledge of the right to such a formal hearing, Respondent waives that right. 5. Respondent and the complainant specifically waive the right to a hearing pursuant to C.R.CP. 251.22(dlll). 6. Respondent and the complainant stipulate to the following facts and conclusions: 1OPDJO8O a. Clarence D. Jones (“Mr. Jones”) hired Respondent to assis t him with the management of his mother’s and brothers’ estates .

rocj Estat&),

b. Mr. Jones is the executor for the Estate of Orlando Chris Jones Mr. Jones’ late brother.

c. Respondent knowingly exercised unauthorized dominion and control over funds belonging to the OCJ estate. d. Specifically, Respondent made an unauthorized withdrawal of from the OCJ Estate bank account with Bank of Ameri ca by writing his law firm a check for $20,000.00 and then depositing that check into his law firm COLTAF account. e. Respondent then proceeded to withdraw $19,304.19 from those funds held in the law firm COLTAF account, payable to himself. Respondent used the funds to pay another client, Mr. Marcelino Galan. He did not use the funds for personal expenses. f. Respondent did not earn the $19,304.19 that he withdrew from the COLTAF account that belonged to Mr. Jones.


g. The Denver District Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against the respondent related to his con version of Mr. Jones’ money. That case was captioned as People of the State of C&orado u. Darrell Milan, 2010CR2531. h. On December 17, 2010, the respond ent pled guilty to a class three felony, theft of $20,000.00 or mo re, and to a class one misdemeanor, theft of $500.00 to $1000.00, pursuant to C.R.S. § 8-4-401(1), (2)(d), and (2ftb.5), respectively. These convictions rela te to the respondent’s conversion of $2000000 of Mr. Jones’ money. i. Respondent received a two-year superv ised deferred judgment and sentence on the class three felony, and a concurrent two-year supeiwIsed probationary sentence on the class one mis demeanor.

j. Respondent is required to pay a total of $20,000 in rest itution. At the time of sentencing, the respond ent tendered a $10000.00 cashier’s cheek to the District Attorney’s Office for the victim of the crime, which leaves $10,000.00 in restitution unpaid.
11PDJO64 k. in July 2008, Respondent represented Marcelino Galan (“Mr. Galan”) in a worker’s compensation cas e, case number 06C1211. 1. In October 2009, Mr. Galan contacted Respondent and asked Respondent to hold $20,304.19 in Res pondent’s trust account. Mr. Galan explained to Respondent that he and his wife were divorcing and that he was afraid his wife would take the money in the divorce. m. Respondent agreed to keep Mr. Galan’s $20,304.19 in the Trimble, Nulan, and & Evans COLTAF account. n. On October 23, 2009, Responden t deposited Mr. Galan’s $20,304. 19 into the Trimble, Nulan, and & Evans COLTAF account. The deposit was credited to Mr. Galan on the Trirnble, Nulan, and & Evans clie nt trust listing and described as “researc h business opportunities.” o. Respondent’s records reflect that he performed two hours of work on behalf of Mr. Galan “researchin g business opportunities”. Responden t charged Mr. Galan $1,000 for this wor k, but later credited Mr. Galan $30 0 towards those fees. p. Mr. Galan did not authorize Responden t to use the $20,304.29 for any purpose other than minimal fees for researching bus iness oppurtunties. 3

q. Respondent knew he was not authorized to use the $20,304.19. r. Nevertheless, From October 2009 to January 2020, Respondent knowingly converted Mr. Oaf an’s funds for his use and benefit without authorization from Mr. Galan. s. Beginning November 30, 2009, the Trimble, Nulan, and & Evans COLTAF account dropped below $20,304.19 and by May 19, 2010, the Trimble, Nulan, and Evans COLTAF account had a balance of $1,700.9S. t. On May 19, 2010, Mr. Galan went to Respondent’s office and requested that Respondent return the $20,304.19 that he entrust ed to Respondent. Respondent did not have the funds to pay Mr. Galan. u. Respondent paid Mr. Galan $500.00 on May 19, 2010. On that same day, May 19, 2010, Respondent withdrew $20,000.00 from a bank account belonging to his client Clarence Jones (“Mr. Jones”). (These facts are pled in case number 1OPDJO8Q.) v. Respondent converted the Jones’ funds in order to make payment to Mr. Galan. Through Respondent’s conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.5. Respondent has also violaEed Cob. RPC 8.4(b) and 8.4(c), 7. Claim One of the complaint in 1OPDJOSD also charges Respondent with violation of Cob. RPC 3.4(c) (A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal). Based upon the discovery performed to date, and as part of the stipulation and agreement containing Respon dents conditional admission of misconduct, the complainant moves that these alleged violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct be dismissed. 8. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.32, Respondent agrees to pay costs in the amount of $33190 (a copy of the statement of costs is attache d hereto as Exhibit 1) incurred in conjunction with this matter within one hundre d and eighty days (180) days after acceptance of the stipulation by the Presidi ng Disciplina’ Judge, made oayabfe to Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. Respondent agrees that statutory interest shall accrue from the date that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepts this stipula tion. Should Respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within (30) days, Respondent specifically agrees to be respon sible for all additional costs and expenses, such as reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection incurred by the complthnan in collecting the above stated amount. 4

The comp]ainant 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 Respondent’s default on the payment. 9. 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 Respondent will be of no effect. Either party will have the opportunity to accept or reject any modifi cation. 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 Respondent in conjunction with this offer to accept discipline of disbarment 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. 10. The Offlce of Attorney Regulation Counsel has notified or will notify shortly after the parties sign this agreement, the complaining witnes s(es) in the matter(s) of the proposed disposition. 11. Respondent’s counsel, Gary B. Blum, Esq., hereby author izes Respondent, Darrell E. Nulari, and the non-lawyer individual in the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel who is responsible for monito ring the conditions set forth herein to communicate directly concerning scheduling and administrative issues or questions. Respondent’s counse l wil] be contacted concerning any substantive issue that may arise. 12. Prior to entering into this stipulation, Respondent has read and carefully considered the language of CR8. §18-1.3-401(3), which provides: Every person convicted of a felony, whether defined as such within or outside this code, shall be disqualified from practicing as an attorney in any courts of this state during the actual time of confinement or commitment to imprisonment or release from actual confinement on conditions of probation...

Respondent acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstand ing the length of the stipulated discipline in this stipulation, such statutory language prohibits this Respondents readmission or reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to CRC]’, 251.29 until and unless Respondent has fully complied with all felony sentencing requirements in the ‘inderiving criminal matter, which includes 1) all terms of confinement, 2) all terms of commitment, including any felony parole conditions, and 3) all terms of felony probation.


PRIOR DISCIPLINE 13. Respondent received a etter of admonition on Dece mber 4, 1981 based on a conflict of interest in a dissolution of marriage matter. Respondent received a two-month suspension on December 3, 1991 for dishonest conduct related to the respondent’s wron gful disbursement of escrowed funds to himself and to a client who was the respondent’s stepbrother, in case number 91SA137. Resp ondent’s license was reinstated on March 10, 1992. ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINE 14. Pursuant to American Bar Association Standard s 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 clients and his duty to safeguard the client property by belonging to two clients. Respondent also viola ted his duty and the public by violating the law, impugning the reputation and committing a criminal offense against his clien t. of honesty to two converting funds to the profession of the profession,

b. The lawyer’s mental state: Respondent’s men tal state was intentional and knowing with respect to his cond uct of converting client funds and committing theft. c. The actua’ or potential injury caused by the lawy er’s misconduct: Respondent’s conduct caused potentially serious harm to his clients when he converted their funds. While Respondent repaid Mr. Galan his client funds, he did so with funds that he converted from Mr. Jone s, Bank of America made Mr. Jones whole by returning all of the fund s stolen by Respondent. Respondent owes a significant amount of restitutio n to flank of America based on his conduct in the Jones matter. Responde nt has paid $12,780.00 in restitution and he continues to make payments. d. The existence of aggravating or mitigating facto rs: Factors in aggravation which are present include: prior disci plinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the law, ABA Standards §9.22(a), (b), (d), and (i). Factors n mitigation include: timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify cons equences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward proceedings, character or reputation, impo sition of other penalties or sanctions, and remorse, ABA Standards §9.3 2(d), (e), (g), (k), and (I).


15. sanction.

Pursuant to ABA Standard 4. 11, disbarment is the appropriate

16. Respondents misconduct in converting funds belonging to two clients can only be characterized as serious misconduct, requiring the most serious sanction provided by the rules: disbarment. Colorado Supreme Court case law supports such a sanction. People ii. Varallo, 913 P.2d 1 (Cob. 1996) (the presumed sanction for knowing conversion of client funds is disbarment, regardless of whether the lawyer intended to permanently deprive the client of those funds.) People v. Dice, 947 P.2d 339 {Coio. 1997) (disbarment is appropriate for knowing misappropriation of funds despite the fact that the respondent has not been previously disciplined.) People u. Torpy, 966 P.2d 1040 (Cob. 1998) (disbarment is approp riate when a lawyer knowingly misappropriates client funds in the absenc e of extraordinary mitigating factors.) 17. Considering all of the factors described above, as applied to this case, disbarment is an appropriate sanction.



Based on the foregoing the parties hereto recommend that a Darrel 1 l E. Nulan be disbarred. Respondent consents to the imposition of discipl ine of disbarment. The parties request that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge order that the effective date of such discipline be immediate. Darrell ID. Nulan, Respondent; Gary B. Bluin and Jessica ID. Mcoawn, attorneys for Respondent; and Adam J. Espinosa, 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.

E. Nulan (h 3570 E. 12 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 839-1572





Darrell S. Nulan, Respondent.

to before me this


day of November, 2011,

my hand and official seal. lesion expires:




Adam I Espinb, ff987 Assistant Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver; Colorado 80202 (303) 866-6400 x6478 Attorney for Complainant 8

Gary/B. Bium, Esq. #3892 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 399-3000 Attorney for Respondent

‘vi &j”pctessica 6. McGawn, Esq. #33065 1801 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 399-3000 Attorney for Respondent


Statement of Costs Darrell E. Nulan 1OPDJO8O/11PDJ064 10-01 824/10-01600

4/27/2011 10/17/2011

Deposition/Nulan Administrative Fee Amount Due $

240.90 91.00 331.90





& STENSTROM, LLC cef4it4 dAaM and epatQ


313! South Vaughn Way. Suite 224

Aurora, Colorado 80014 (720) 449-0329 FUN 84- 1S6167 BILL TO: ADAM J. ESPINOSA, ESQ. Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel l56Oflroadway Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202



IN VOICE # 16579


People v. Darrell Eugenc Nulaii Supreme Court, Slate of Colorado Original Proceeding in Discipline Before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge Case No, IOPDJO8O



DESCRIPTION Deposition of DARRELL EUONE NULAN Original Transcript Preparation April 27, 2011 c-Transcript Exhibit Copying Index Tabs Appearance Fee Half Day Delivery (Original and copy)

RATE 3.75

AMOUNT 135.00


I 14 8 I 1 e-Transcript

Tndex Tabs AF-flaif Day 0+1 Delivery

550 0.30 0.15 7500 20.00

5.50 420 1.20 75.00 20.00

--_.j’Jnterest will be charged it the rate of 1.5% per month on any amount not paid within 30 days.