Opinion ID: 2600234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: claim vii

Text: [A Lawyer Shall Keep A Client Reasonably Informed About the Status of a Matter, Promptly Comply With Reasonable Requests for InformationColo. RPC 1.4(a)] Paragraphs 52 through 59 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. Colo. RPC 1.4(a) provides that a lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. This respondent failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the legal matter and failed to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information in the following respects: a. by failing to respond to telephone calls from Mr. Green; b. and by failing to maintain minimum communications with Mr. Green throughout the course of the representation. Each of these failures to communicate adequately with the client constitutes a separate violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a) as do all of them together. The respondent knew or should have known that he had failed to communicate adequately with his/her client over an extended period of months. The respondent's pattern and practice of failing to communicate with the client caused injury or potential injury to the client. By such conduct, the respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a). WHEREFORE, the complainant prays at the conclusion hereof. General Allegations in Mason Matter Carlos Mason hired the respondent to represent him in two different cases. Mr. Mason hired the respondent first in June 2001 to represent him in an attempt to reduce a criminal sentence. Mr. Mason had earlier been convicted in Denver District Court of aggravated robbery and was and is incarcerated in the Sterling Correctional Facility on a 20-year sentence. Judge Mullins sentenced him. Mr. Mason had earlier filed Crim. Rule 35(b) and 35(c) motions in 1999. The judge denied both these motions. The judge reconsidered the Crim. R. 35(b) motion and denied it again. According to Mr. Mason, in July of 2001, the judge said that he did not mean to deny the reconsideration but he no longer had the ability to look at it. It was at this point that Mr. Mason hired respondent to represent him in an effort to revive the Crime. P. 35(b) motion. Mr. Mason's girlfriend, Cecelia Nunez, actually met with the respondent and signed a fee agreement dated June 4, 2001, on behalf of Mr. Mason for the respondent to represent Mr. Mason. She paid the respondent $2,500 for this representation. An attorney client relationship was formed between the respondent and Mr. Mason, thereby forming an obligation on the part of the respondent to perform the agreed-upon services. By agreeing to perform the requested services, the respondent inherently represented that he would provide the services in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent filed a motion on August 14, 2001 and asked the judge to review Mr. Mason's sentence. As of March 2002, the respondent had not heard anything from the Denver District Court. The respondent stated to Mr. Mason that Judge Mullins and Judge Rappaport switched courtrooms and Mr. Mason's file was lost. Judge Mullins actually took the file with him to his new courtroom and then ruled on the motion on April 23, 2002. A copy of the Order was mailed to the respondent, but it was returned because the respondent had moved offices. The court did not send it to respondent's new address, and there is no indication that the court knew of his new address. In June of 2002 Mr. Mason asked respondent if more money would help his case. Respondent suggested it would, and asked for $5,000. He stated that with the extra money he would supply the court with a copy of the file and he or his assistant would sit down with the clerk to explain this situation. On June 26, 2002, Ms. Nunez gave respondent an additional $2,500 and promised to give the other half in a couple of months. When Ms. Nunez paid the respondent the additional money, the respondent promised her that he would send her an itemized bill and a receipt. He did not do so and later stated to her that his busy schedule had precluded him from doing so. Between June and October 2002 Mr. Mason or Ms. Nunez spoke to respondent about six times. He stated that he still had not heard about a ruling on the motion. Mr. Mason learned about the denial of his motion to review his sentence when he wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Denver District Court in October of 2002. In the meantime, Mr. Mason was sued for paternity in Arapahoe County District Court in April 2002. The respondent agreed to handle this matter. Ms. Nunez paid an additional $750.00 to the respondent for this second representation. Mr. Mason spoke to respondent by telephone about this case. He asked respondent to appear in court and to explain to the court that Mr. Mason was not contesting paternity. Mr. Mason was hoping to work out a modified payment plan for support. The respondent implicitly agreed to do so. On May 16, 2002, the Arapahoe DA's Office sent an administrative process order to Mr. Mason for genetic testing. He contacted respondent to learn why this order had issued. Respondent told Mr. Mason not to worry about it and he would take care of it. Respondent said he and the DA's Office were playing phone tag. On August 12, BAD TEXT] a process order was entered by default establishing financial responsibility of Mr. Mason. The order states that Mr. Mason was properly served and that he had defaulted. Mr. Mason called the respondent several times within a couple of weeks and talked to him about that order. Mr. Mason asked for his money back because respondent never did anything. Respondent said he would return his money. Mr. Mason agreed that respondent could keep $250, but that was the last Mr. Mason heard from the respondent. During that same phone call, respondent told Mr. Mason that the Denver District Court motion had been denied but respondent did not know why. He said he would go to the court and find out, and told Mr. Mason to give respondent a call that Friday to learn what had happened. Mr. Mason said that he tried and was not able to reach the respondent ever again. Further attempts by Mr. Mason and Ms. Nunez to communicate with respondent were not successful.