Opinion ID: 2602333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: The Lottig matter

Text: 18. In 1997, Jim Lottig retained respondent on a contingency fee basis to sue certain individuals who built Mr. Lottig's residence. Respondent commenced the civil action and engaged in some discovery and investigation. 19. In May of 2000, Lottig settled with one of the defendants. Respondent received one-quarter of the settlement amount pursuant to the terms of the contingency fee agreement. 20. Thereafter, the civil action against the other defendants continued. 21. By September of 2000, Mr. Lottig had not heard from respondent concerning the case, and Mr. Lottig began attempting to contact respondent concerning the status of the legal matter. 22. Thereafter, respondent contacted Mr. Lottig at home and insisted that he dismiss the case against the remaining defendants. Lottig told respondent that he did not agree. Respondent called Mr. Lottig approximate one week later, again insisting that the case be dismissed. Again, Lottig disagreed. That is the last time Mr. Lottig heard from the respondent. 23. On October 20, 2000, Lottig reviewed the court file concerning his civil action and discovered a trial date had been scheduled for October 23, 2000, but had been vacated at a pretrial conference held September 22, 2000. Lottig did not have notice of the scheduling of the trial, or the pretrial conference. An order from the pretrial conference required respondent to reset the trial date no sooner than 45 days, and no later than 60 days, after the date of the pretrial. The order states that if respondent does not reset the trial date, the court will consider it a failure to prosecute and dismiss the case for that reason. 24. Respondent did not reset the trial date, and the matter was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 25. Lottig has requested that respondent return his files and documents to him, but respondent has failed to do so, or to even to respond to Lottig's requests to return the file. 26. Lottig has tried repeatedly to contact respondent concerning the matter, but respondent will not return Lottig's messages or otherwise contact Lottig. 27. Respondent failed to respond to the request for investigation in this matter, in violation of C.R.C.P. 251.5(d) and 251.10(a). The envelope containing the request for investigation were returned to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel with a notation on the envelope: Moved, left no address. A copy of the envelope is attached as exhibit A. 28. Respondent has failed to update his registered business and home addresses with the Office of Attorney Registration, as required by C.R.C.P. 227A(2)(b).