Opinion ID: 2499272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Representation of Nguyen

Text: On October 30, 2005, Respondent filed a complaint in Adams County District Court on behalf of Nguyen, whose son was killed in a November 2003 car accident. In this lawsuit, Nguyen asserted wrongful death claims as father and executor of his son's estate against the E-470 Public Highway Authority (E-470), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Ideal Fencing Corporation (Ideal), and American Civil Constructors, Inc. (ACC). The district court dismissed the claims against E-470 in pre-trial litigation. [2] On June 5, 2007, the court dismissed Nguyen's claims against CDOT on governmental immunity grounds and conditionally dismissed the claims against Ideal and ACC on the basis that those companies lacked responsibility for the highway guardrail at issue. [3] Although the court stayed the conditional dismissal for thirty days to permit Nguyen to request an opportunity to conduct additional discovery regarding Ideal and ACC, Respondent did not exercise that right; he testified at the disciplinary hearing that he had concluded CDOT was accountable for the guardrail, so he had no basis for contesting the dismissal of Ideal and ACC. On December 18, 2007, the court reviewed the status of the Nguyen matter. In light of several pending motions for reconsideration, for attorney's fees, for amendment of the complaint, and for extensions of time, the court ordered Respondent to file a status report within fifteen days indicating which issues remained before the court and whether Nguyen intended to move forward with the case. [4] Although the order specifically noted that failure to file the requested status report would lead to an order dismissing the case in its entirety, [5] Respondent filed no status report with the court. [6] A status conference was then set in Nguyen's matter for February 13, 2008. [7] Although Respondent concedes he was served with the notice of status conference, he did not see the notice and therefore failed to attend the conference. He attributes this error to the facts that he no longer employed a secretary and the notice arrived while he was busy caring for his children at Christmastime. At the status conference, the court determined Respondent had previously received appropriate notice that Nguyen's case would be dismissed if Respondent did not file the ordered status report. [8] The court entered a written order ruling that Respondent had not complied with its earlier directive and dismissing Nguyen's case without prejudice. [9] As noted above, the PDJ granted summary judgment on the People's Colo. RPC 1.3 claim, determining as a matter of law that Respondent did not represent Nguyen with the requisite diligence and promptness. [10] Even though the evidence does not establish that Nguyen's case would have remained viable if Respondent had submitted the status report and attended the status conference, his failure to take those actions amounted to a violation of his duty to diligently represent his client. Nguyen related at the disciplinary hearing that after the court dismissed his case, Respondent told him only that his case had been denied and that the judge did not agree with the case. According to Nguyen, Respondent never mentioned that he had failed to comply with court orders and that his inaction precipitated the dismissal. Respondent, for his part, made varying and inconsistent assertions on this score: he testified on direct examination that he remembered telling Nguyen his failure to attend the status conference had led to the dismissal; he said on cross-examination that he did not remember exactly how he explained the dismissal to Nguyen; and he admits in his answer he did not tell Nguyen that his case was dismissed due to his failure to appear for the status conference. [11] Respondent's equivocation impugns his reliability as a witness on this issue; meanwhile, even though Nguyen has a limited command of English [12] and may not have correctly recalled the precise terms used by Respondent, we find Nguyen credible and we believe his testimony that he did not realize Respondent had failed to comply with court directives. The People allege Respondent failed to keep Nguyen reasonably informed about the status of his matter in violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) by neglecting to explain the circumstances underlying the case's dismissal. We are troubled by Respondent's poor communication with Nguyen. Respondent may have briefly referred to his mistakes in informing Nguyen of the dismissal, but it is clear to us that Respondent did not explain those circumstances in a manner Nguyen understood. And while Nguyen's limited English skills could have made it difficult for Respondent to relate complex legal concepts, he surely could have made plain that he had erred by not filing the status report and missing the status conference. By failing to do so, Respondent acted without the level of professionalism and transparency we would expect. Yet we are not persuaded that Respondent's incomplete communication regarding the dismissal amounted to a rule violation. Colorado Ethics Opinion 113 provides: When, by act or omission, a lawyer has made an error, and that error is likely to result in prejudice to a client's right or claim, the lawyer must promptly disclose the error to the client. Error, as used in this opinion, is not meant to include an act or omission that a reasonable lawyer would conclude would not likely result in prejudice to a client's right or claim. [13] Here, Nguyen's claims probably were no longer viable at the district court level when the court ordered Respondent to prepare the status report. By then, the court had granted motions for summary judgment or dismissal of E-470, CDOT, Ideal, and ACC. It appears that the court directed Respondent to prepare a status report in order to tie up loose ends and that the case soon would have been dismissed even if Respondent had filed the status report and attended the status conference. Thus, Respondent's inattention to these court directives, like missing a nonjurisdictional deadline, a potentially fruitful area of discovery, or a theory of liability or defense, appears to fall under the category of errors that may constitute grounds for loss of sleep, but not an ethical duty to disclose to the client. [14] In sum, Respondent's failure to share with Nguyen non-prejudicial information about the representation did not amount to a violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3). Nor do we find clear and convincing evidence that Respondent misrepresented facts concerning the case's dismissal to Nguyen in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c). While Respondent certainly did not communicate with Nguyen as clearly as best practices would dictate, we find it entirely possible Respondent made a reference to his non-compliance with court directives that Nguyen simply did not understand. In short, we are not persuaded that Respondent meant to deceive Nguyen or that his conduct rose to the level of recklessness. [15] In August 2009, Nguyen asked Respondent to return his case file, a camcorder, and a videotape containing accident scene footage he had taken shortly after his son's accident. [16] Although Nguyen made ten or fifteen separate entreaties, Respondent did not provide the requested items. He responded once to Nguyen, explaining by telephone that he was working on finding the file. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent explained he did not promptly return Nguyen's file because it was in storage and he had trouble locating it. In addition, Respondent contends Nguyen never gave him a camcorder or videotape in the first place, noting that these items do not appear on the list of disclosures and exhibits he maintained. On this score, we find Nguyen's testimony more credible, due not only to his manner and demeanor on the witness stand, but also due to his specific recollection with respect to the video equipment. After months of fruitless attempts to obtain his file, Nguyen paid Cindy Dang, Esq., (Dang) $200.00 to assist him in that effort. On November 10, 2009, Dang wrote to Respondent, seeking the return of Nguyen's file. [17] On November 19, 2009, she spoke by telephone with Respondent, who agreed to restore Nguyen's file within five days. [18] When he failed to do so, Dang wrote a followup letter. [19] Respondent's continued failure to produce the file led Dang to recommend that Nguyen file a complaint with the People. After Nguyen lodged a complaint with Dang's assistance, Respondent returned the file on February 19, 2010, though the videotape and camcorder were not included. Dang wrote again to Respondent on March 11, 2010, asking for the video equipment, but Respondent never produced it. The People contend Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(4) and 1.16(d) by failing to return Nguyen's file and video equipment upon request. Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(4) requires lawyers to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, while Colo. RPC 1.16(d) requires a lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled. Respondent had a responsibility to store client files and property in an organizational system that would enable him to promptly locate and return them upon a client's request. Respondent's failure to return Nguyen's video equipment and his six-month delay in returning Nguyen's file, which forced Nguyen to hire another attorney to assist in recovering his file, represents a dereliction of Respondent's duties under Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(4) and 1.16(d).