Opinion ID: 2499595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: ABA Standard 3.0 Duty, Injury, and Mental State

Text: Duty: Respondent's disclosure of client confidences to the judge and the prosecutors during two in camera proceedings and his concealment of the proceedings from his client in violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a), 1.6(a), 1.7(b), 1.8(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) constitutes a dereliction of his duties to Ragusa, his client, the general public, and to the legal system. Mental State: The Hearing Board concludes that Respondent acted knowingly with respect to all of the People's claims (save Colo. RPC 1.2(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(c)) when he revealed client confidences during the two in camera proceedings, refused to tell Ragusa about the hearings, and asked the court to hold two in camera hearings without Ragusa present so that he could make a record to protect, in part, his own self-interest. Injury: Through his misconduct, Respondent caused actual and potential injury to Ragusa, the general public, and the legal system. By revealing client confidences without consent and by refusing to properly advise Ragusa of the conflict that he knew had developed, Respondent caused actual injury to Ragusa by preventing her from knowingly and intelligently exercising her right to conflict-free and effective counsel during her trial. [51] Respondent's misconduct violated Ragusa's right to effective representation and to a fair trial. [52] Ragusa testified that when she first was made aware of the in camera hearings, she was shocked that her own attorneys were lying about her behind her back and purposefully making her look bad. Ragusa testified that she was very angry, hurt, and betrayed when she read the transcripts, which led [her] to believe that every lawyer was a con. Respondent's conduct also inflicted harm upon the general public and the legal system, as his behavior adversely affected Ragusa's trial, which was reversed and remanded. Although Ragusa was able to enter into a plea bargain to her benefit, the reversal caused substantial delays in the judicial process and the expenditure of additional and unnecessary judicial resources. Finally, Respondent's conduct and the confidences he revealed had the potential to affect Judge Russell's rulings in the case and to affect the conduct of the prosecution. [53]