Opinion ID: 2498717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Cole Matter

Text: In 2007, Mitchell Cole (Cole) hired Respondent to represent him in post-dissolution matters involving his ex-wife (Ms. Cole) and minor daughter. [18] Cole's dissolution proceedings were initially conducted in California. In May 2000, at the conclusion of those proceedings, the California court entered an order (May 2000 Order) stating that at all times not designated with Cole, their minor daughter should be with Ms. Cole and that the parties should inform each other of their current addresses. [19] In 2000, Ms. Cole and their daughter moved to Colorado, with Cole's consent, and the Colorado courts took jurisdiction over post-dissolution matters. In 2006, after contentious and extended litigation resulting in a contempt hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation requiring Ms. Cole to provide Cole with their daughter's school year calendar within ten days of receipt and to bear equally the costs of their daughter's air travel. [20] The stipulation further provided that if either party filed a motion for contempt, the prevailing party would be entitled to $1,000.00 in liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs. [21] In September 2008, Cole learned for the first time that Ms. Cole had enrolled their daughter in a Virginia boarding school the prior month. Cole believed his former wife was in violation of the May 2000 Order provision stating that their daughter should be with one or the other parent at all times. Respondent discussed these matters with Cole, who directed Respondent to file a punitive contempt citation on his behalf. [22] Respondent did so in December 2008. In the citation, Respondent asserted that Ms. Cole's behavior violated the May 2000 Order, increased the distance between Cole and his child, increased the travel expenses for visitation, and made it difficult for Cole to communicate with his daughter, who was subject to telephone call restrictions at the school. [23] Respondent argued that a temporary injunction pursuant to C.R.S. § 14-10-107 was in effect, which prohibited either party from removing their daughter from Colorado without consent of the other party or written court order. At an advisement hearing on January 20, 2009, the court informed Respondent that the temporary injunction was no longer in effect, as it had not been made permanent. [24] Respondent stated that he was not relying entirely on section 14-10-107 as grounds for the contempt citation. [25] In spite of the court's expressed concerns about the contempt citation, Respondent persisted and the matter was set for a citation hearing on March 17, 2009. [26] During the citation hearing, Respondent reiterated the arguments made in his contempt citation, save for the section 14-10-107 argument. [27] At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that no order entered in the case prohibited Ms. Cole from sending her daughter to boarding school outside of Colorado, Cole could have filed a motion to prohibit his daughter's removal rather than a contempt citation, Ms. Cole did provide Cole with the calendar by email in September 2008, and the child's attendance at boarding school had not affected Cole's visitation. [28] Although the court stated that it believed the reasons that Cole gave for filing this motion, it ultimately concluded that Respondent's contempt citation was not proven. . . not founded . . . spurious . . . [and] vexatious. [29] The court further ordered Cole to pay $9,369.50 in attorney's fees and $1,000.00 in liquidated damages. [30] Respondent appealed this order, contending that the trial court erred in determining Respondent did not meet his burden for the contempt claim and in awarding attorney's fees against him individually. [31] The appeal is still pending. The People assert that when Respondent filed the contempt citation based upon his interpretation of the May 2000 Order, he violated Colo. RPC 3.1, which states that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. [32] The People argue that even though the appeal is pending and the trial court's order may be reversed, Respondent can still be disciplined for violating Colo. RPC 3.1. The Hearing Board agrees. However, the evidence presented does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate Respondent brought a frivolous proceeding in violation of Colo. RPC 3.1. Rather, we find that the balance of the evidence indicates that Respondent had a proper basis for filing the punitive contempt citation because he had a good faith belief that: (1) a lawful court order existed; (2) Ms. Cole was aware of that order; (3) Ms. Cole was able to comply with the order; and (4) Ms. Cole arguably willfully refused to comply with the order. [33] Respondent testified that he consulted with Cole prior to filing the contempt citation, that Cole was angry and concerned that Ms. Cole was allegedly intentionally hiding information from him regarding his daughter's schooling and whereabouts, and that Cole wanted to file the citation. Both of the parties were aware of the May 2000 Order and presumably had been complying with the order until August 2008. Respondent and his client interpreted Ms. Cole's actions to be a willful refusal to comply with the order. Under these circumstances, we do not conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith. Further, the May 2000 Order is susceptible to different interpretations and we cannot find that Respondent lacked a rational argument supporting the merits of the citation in violation of Colo. RPC 3.1. [34] The People next assert Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.1, which provides that a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. The People claim that Respondent's initial reliance on C.R.S. § 14-10-107 and his failure to file a motion to prohibit Ms. Cole from sending her daughter to Virginia were incompetent. [35] With respect to Respondent's decision to file the contempt citation and his initial reliance on C.R.S. § 14-10-107, we have already found that Respondent did not file a frivolous pleading. For the same reasons, the Hearing Board cannot conclude that Respondent incompetently represented Cole in violation of Colo. RPC 1.1. [36]