Opinion ID: 1191846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Collection Matter

Text: The complaint in Quiat's second disciplinary case charged Quiat with placing repeated telephone calls to an individual's home, speaking with the individual's wife and threatening to sue her husband, indicating that she could lose her house, and that her husband could be held in contempt. These charges grew out of Quiat's attempt to collect fees for legal work he had performed for Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc., a company headed by George C. Jones. Quiat had obtained a judgment in Oklahoma for attorney fees owed to him by Heartland and other defendants, including Jones. After domesticating this judgment in Colorado, Quiat obtained an ex parte writ of assistance. On March 15, 1994, the district judge signed two orders: Amended Order # 1 and Amended Order # 2. Amended Order # 1 recited that the writ of assistance for collection of Quiat's judgment was binding upon any and all third persons having actual notice of it. Through discovery in the Heartland matter Quiat became aware of various business dealings that Karl D. Edmunds, a resident of Littleton, had with George Jones. Quiat discovered documents pertaining to Edmunds's involvement with Mountain States and the American Express card, among other matters. On May 2, 1994, Quiat sent a copy of the amended orders to Edmunds by certified mail. During May and June 1994, Quiat called Edmunds's home at least three times. On each occasion, the telephone was answered by Edmunds's wife, who told Quiat that her husband was not at home. In the first two calls, separated by about two weeks, Quiat curtly asked to speak with Mr. Edmunds about a legal matter. When Ms. Edmunds told him that her husband was not at home, Quiat demanded to know how to contact him. Ms. Edmunds gave Quiat her husband's voice mail number and suggested that he leave a message. The hearing board then found: During one or more of the telephone calls, the respondent became very angry and told Mrs. Edmunds that her husband could be held in contempt for failing to speak with the respondent. At that time, the respondent was contemplating the initiation of contempt proceedings pursuant to C.R.C.P. 69. However, no such action was possible until Mr. Edmunds had received copies of the amended orders. When he made the call, Quiat had not verified that the orders had in fact been received by Edmunds. The hearing board continued: Mrs. Edmunds was very upset by this telephone call, and contacted her husband, who then called the respondent. The respondent told Mr. Edmunds that he could voluntarily cooperate with him or subject himself to more formal proceedings. Mr. Edmunds told the respondent he had never received any orders from Douglas County district court. Immediately after speaking with Mr. Edmunds, the respondent had the amended orders hand-carried to Mr. Edmunds. Quiat did seek an order of contempt against Edmunds under C.R.C.P. 69, but the court denied the motion as lacking a substantial basis. The hearing board characterized the issue before it as whether the respondent's statements to Mrs. Edmunds regarding the contempt citation were dishonest. The board noted that Quiat admitted that in one conversation he told Ms. Edmunds that her husband could be held in contempt, but Quiat stated that he did not convey the possibility in a threatening manner. The board resolved the credibility issue against Quiat, concluding that the respondent was abrupt with Mrs. Edmunds; that he threatened to pursue contempt proceedings against her husband; and that he failed to advise her that such action was not possible absent notice of the amended orders to Mr. Edmunds. Because when he spoke with her Quiat had no verification that her husband had notice of the amended orders, [t]he respondent's statements to Mrs. Edmunds regarding the possibility of contempt were, therefore, dishonest, in violation of C.R.C.P. 241.6(3). C.R.C.P. 241.6(3) provides that [a]ny act or omission which violates the highest standards of honesty, justice, or morality constitutes grounds for lawyer discipline. The board also found that Quiat had engaged in conduct that violated accepted standards of legal ethics, in violation of C.R.C.P. 241.6(2) and Colo. RPC 8.4(g).