Opinion ID: 2499841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Respondent's Efforts to Obtain Additional Compensation

Text: Under the Barillas' fee settlement with the Magness Defendants, Respondent received and negotiated a check for $91,666.67. [18] Respondent contends that once the Barillas settled their fee claims, her contractual relationship with them ended, and she was free to pursue her own independent claims under CCIOA for additional fees from the Magness Defendants. As such, Respondent does not dispute that, following the trial court's approval of the global settlement, she sent an email to the Magness Defendants' counsel, Alexander, volunteering to release her own compensation claims for an additional $50,000. Respondent conditioned her offer on confidentiality even broader than the rule provides for and specifically precluded disclosure of any communication about it to the Barillas or anyone from [the HOA]. [19] Alexander rejected the offer as unethical, to which Respondent replied by email, Do not lecture me about ethics, Ms. Alexander. Fine: Gary [Magness] will spend $50,000 defending the appeal! Respondent argues she was appropriately pursuing fees in an appropriate manner. At the hearing, Respondent went so far as to assert she had no duty to spare another party [the Barillas] in litigation, and that it is immaterial how [the Barillas] felt. We disagree, and we deem Respondent's conduct inconsistent with this State's system of professional ethics. [20] While Respondent may possess a colorable claim for additional fees, her methods of attempted collection here were deceptive. Respondent's insistence on complete confidentiality demonstrates to us that Respondent wished to hide any additional recovery, thereby intentionally depriving the Barillas of any notice regarding receipt of fees to which they might lay claim. Indeed, if Respondent truly believed she had an independent claim to additional attorney's fees under CCIOA, there would have been no reason to condition a settlement with the Magness Defendants on strict confidentiality from the Barillas. The Hearing Board considers Respondent's conduct deceitful and woefully lacking in personal integrity. A lawyer's integrity is the cornerstone of the public's trust in the legal profession. [21] We find Respondent violated that trust here. Even though the Barillas were no longer her clients, Respondent still had an obligation as a lawyer to act openly and honestly when making overtures to obtain additional attorney's fees. That Respondent attempted to enlist the Magness Defendants in her scheme to hide receipt of additional funds makes her behavior even more egregious in our view. Therefore, the Hearing Board finds and concludes Respondent's attempt to secretly negotiate with the Magness Defendants for additional attorney's fees, while expressly seeking to avoid disclosure of those arrangements to the Barillas, constitutes intentional conduct involving deceit in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c). We emphasize that we do not base our findings on a theory of breach of contract, [22] but rather on the fundamental principal that lawyers must approach all interactions with fair dealing, honesty and integrity. Here, because Respondent specifically attempted to conceal any additional recovery from the Barillas, who had a right to know of any such arrangements, her conduct lies well beyond the bounds, rather than merely at the less-clearly defined fringes, of acceptable behavior. [23] As a final matter, based upon her manner and demeanor on the witness stand and the unreasonableness of her testimony, the Hearing Board finds that Respondent is not a credible witness. We specifically conclude Respondent's explanation that she finds herself in these proceedings solely because powerful people want to take away her license to practice law entirely without merit.