Opinion ID: 2598392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: the jack duran/juanita rice/amy szot/patricia behrens matters

Text: 2. Jack E. Duran is an orthodontist. Dr. Duran and Amy Wallace began a relationship in Ohio and continued that relationship when they arrived together in Colorado in July/August 1996. Amy worked as an assistant in Dr. Duran's orthodontic business. The couple also had a daughter in the spring of 1998 (Jacklynn). Jack and Amy both referred to Amy as Amy Duran during the course of their relationship. 3. At some point in the summer of 1998, Jack Duran believed Amy was embezzling monies from the business. Several matters resulted, including: (a) a criminal complaint filed by Jack Duran against Amy; (b) an unemployment benefits matter involving Amy's employment with the business; (c) a dissolution of common law marriage action filed by Amy; and (d) a civil action for slander/defamation of character filed by Amy against Jack, Jack's father, and Jack's mother. 4. The respondent represented Amy in the dissolution matter and the unemployment compensation matter, and assisted Amy during the police investigation into potential criminal misconduct regarding the embezzlement allegations. 5. An attorney-client relationship was entered into on October 21, 1998, thereby forming an obligation on the part of respondent to perform the agreed-upon services. By agreeing to perform the requested services, the respondent inherently represented that she would provide the services in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. 6. The client's mother, Patricia Behrens, paid the respondent's initial retainer. At an October 1998 meeting, the respondent informed her client and the client's mother that the mother would get all of her money back by court order even if the respondent had to personally put a padlock on Jack Duran's office and sell off his equipment. 7. On November 13, 1998, Amy Duran (by and through the respondent) filed a petition for dissolution of common law marriage against Jack Duran in In re the Marriage of Duran, case no. 98DR3077, Arapahoe County District Court. A domestic case management and delay reduction order was entered on that same date, requiring that the parties meet and attempt in good faith to resolve temporary orders, that the matter be submitted to some form of alternative dispute resolution, and that case management, disclosure and discovery be conducted in accordance with C.R.C.P. 16.2 and 26.2. 8. On December 1, 1998, Jack Duran filed his response, and denied that the parties were married at any time, and filed a counter-petition for custody of Jacklynn. 9. On December 10, 1998, Jack Duran, though attorney Amy Loper, filed a verified motion for determination of existence of common law marriage. 10. On December 17, 1998, a hearing on permanent orders before Judge Jack Smith was scheduled for October 18-20, 1999. On January 2, 1999, Judge Smith ordered that the matter of common law marriage also be heard on October 18-20, 1999. A hearing on temporary orders was scheduled for February 19, 1999. 11. On February 10, 1999, the respondent prepared and signed a subpoena to appear and produce documents that was directed to Jack Duran's father: a. The subpoena directed the father to appear in division M of the Arapahoe County District Court on February 18, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. as a witness for Amy Duran (the subpoena instructed him to arrive at 9:45 a.m.). b. The subpoena also directed the father to produce documents that might support his interest in his son's business, and that support or refute any claim that Amy may have embezzled funds from him, his son, or the business. c. While there was a temporary orders hearing scheduled on February 19, 1999 at 2:30 p.m., there were no proceedings scheduled for February 18, 1999 in the dissolution matter. d. The subpoena was served upon Jack Duran (the son) at approximately 1:45 p.m. on February 17, 1999, and not upon the intended recipient of the subpoena. e. No attendance or mileage fee was served with the document, and no notice was given to either attorney Loper or to Jack Duran's father regarding the subpoena or the February 18 event. f. Furthermore, the respondent wrote the following on the face of the document: failure to appear may result in your arrest. 12. On February 17, 1999, attorney Loper filed a joint motion to quash on behalf of her client and the client's father, requesting that the subpoena be quashed because the subpoenas were not served 48 hours before the time of appearance, and no court order was issued permitting the time to be shortened (C.R.C.P.45(c)); that the requisite attendance fee and mileage were not tendered with said subpoena (C.R.C.P.45(c)); that five days notice to opposing counsel was not provided, nor had the respondent made any effort to schedule the appearance at a time reasonably convenient to either the father, the son, or attorney Loper (C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12(1)); and that the attempted service was made upon the son at his place of business, and not upon the father, and therefore personal service had not been achieved on the father (C.R.C.P.4(e)(1)). Furthermore, attorney Loper objected to the handwritten statement on the subpoena that stated failure to appear may result in your arrest as a totally false threat given the invalidity of the attempted service. 13. On February 19, 1999, the first of three temporary orders hearings occurred. At that hearing, the parties stipulated that on an interim basis Amy would be the sole legal custodian of Jacklynn. The court accepted that stipulation and ordered that until a continued temporary orders hearing (scheduled for March 31, 1999) occurred, Amy would have sole legal custody of Jacklynn (Amy had relocated to Great Bend, Kansas). 14. The court also ordered Amy to immediately sign a release that had already been furnished by attorney Loper for Amy's First Bank account. 15. On March 12, 1999, Judge Smith entered an order quashing the respondent's February 10 subpoena, and granted the protective order and awarded attorney fees against Amy Duran and respondent Gifford. The court further ordered: Petitioner and her counsel are ordered to desist from any further discovery which is not conducted in compliance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. 16. On March 15, 1999, attorney Loper filed a motion to compel discovery, requesting overdue responses to pattern interrogatories and pattern and non-pattern requests for production of documents, to compel Amy to comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of C.R.C.P. 26.2(a), and to compel Amy to execute releases for her First Bank account. Prior correspondence amongst attorneys Loper and Gifford demonstrate that Gifford disputed whether the court had ordered Amy to sign the release regarding her bank account. 17. On March 18, 1999, interim temporary orders submitted by attorney Loper were made an order of court. An alternate form submitted by respondent Gifford was not approved. 18. On March 24, 1999, the respondent filed a response to attorney Loper's motion to compel discovery and also filed a motion to compel discovery and motion to order (Jack Duran) to comply with orders of the court and motion for sanctions/attorney fees. In the response and motions, the respondent stated that the First Bank release has been dealt with. This statement was false; no release had been signed for the bank account as of the date of said response. Instead, the respondent and her client had produced two months of statements on one account and the 1996 statements from another account. This limited production of documents was in violation of the prior court order that Amy immediately sign the release. 19. The respondent knew that the above statement contained in her response pleading was false at the time she made such statement. 20. Respondent Gifford's March 24, 1999, motion to compel Jack Duran to provide discovery was not based on Jack Duran's failure to answer any formal discovery, but instead on a claim that documents informally requested had not been produced. Respondent failed to disclose this information to the court in her motion, but instead implied that formal requests were made pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondent's motion to compel thus did not comply with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. 21. On March 29, 1999, the respondent filed a motion for continuance of the March 31 temporary orders hearing, and as grounds therefore stated that the respondent fell and injured herself at the Jefferson County Courthouse. The motion was granted, and the continued temporary orders was set for May 12, 1999. 22. On April 7, 1999, Judge Smith entered an order deferring the motions to compel filed by both parties to the [October 18-20, 1999] hearing, in anticipation that counsel will understand their respective obligations and convey them to their respective clients. No further action was taken by Judge Smith on these outstanding motions prior to the October 18-20, 1999 hearing. 23. Despite the prior March 12, 1999 court order regarding respondent Gifford's February 10 subpoena, on April 21, 1999, the respondent Gifford again attempted to serve a subpoena on Jack Duran's father (this time, for the May 12, 1999 temporary orders hearing): a. The respondent did not, however, attempt to personally serve the father at his home in Ignacio, Colorado; instead, the respondent served the son's business. b. The respondent failed to tender the proper attendance fee and mileage for the father. c. Finally, the subpoena requested the son's orthodontic business records and appointment book and records for patients, and thus information outside the control of the father and that could be subject to Jack Duran's assertion of a doctor/patient privilege. 24. On April 26, 1999 opposing counsel Loper requested that the respondent cease communicating directly with Jack Duran on matters involving either the dissolution proceeding or the unemployment compensation hearing. 25. On Wednesday, May 12, 1999, a second interim temporary orders hearing occurred. The magistrate again referred to its previous order that Amy Duran sign a release for the First Bank account. The court noted that Amy Duran had not signed the release. The court ordered the Amy Duran sign the release immediately and deliver it to attorney Loper before the end of the day on May 12, 1999. 26. Temporary orders were not completed on May 12, 1999 and were thus continued to and concluded on August 3, 1999. 27. On August 13, 1999, respondent Gifford faxed and mailed a notice of paper deposition to attorney Loper: a. The respondent was requesting production of business records, bank records and personal records, presumably from the opposing party Jack Duran and his orthodontic practice (the notice of paper deposition did not indicate to whom it was addressed). There is no provision for such a paper deposition in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Jack Duran was a party to the proceeding and thus the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure concerning production of documents applied. This notice of paper deposition did not comply with the rules. b. Also the date of the paper deposition (August 20 at 9:30 a.m.) was not scheduled beforehand with attorney Loper, as required pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-12. On August 18, 1999, attorney Loper filed a motion for protective orders against the August 13, 1999, subpoena. 28. On August 23, 1999, respondent Gifford filed a motion for forthwith telephone hearing for restraining order and other appropriate relief, alleging that Jack Duran had been harassing Amy Duran through telephone communications. 29. On August 24, 1999 attorney Loper filed a response on behalf of Jack Duran and asserted that the motion was an attempt to circumvent the August 20, 1999, temporary orders regarding parenting time. 30. On August 26, 1999 and after a telephone hearing, the magistrate denied respondent Gifford's motion, finding no evidence, direct, circumstantial or otherwise to prove the allegations made. 31. On August 26, 1999, respondent had a subpoena duces tecum served on Jack Duran: a. The respondent had the subpoena served without any notice to Dr. Duran's counsel, attorney Loper. b. The subpoena required the production of an extensive list of documents on September 1, 1999. c. This subpoena again circumvented the procedures by which one party may obtain documents from another party (C.R.C.P. 34). On August 30, 1999, attorney Loper filed a motion to quash the most recent subpoena duces tecum and for protective orders and for sanctions. 32. On September 23, 1999, respondent Gifford issued a subpoena to Dr. Efren Martinez for a deposition on October 1, 1999: a. Respondent Gifford made no attempt to give attorney Loper notice that the deposition was going to occur, in violation of C.R.C.P. 30(b)(1) and C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12. b. The permanent orders hearing was scheduled for October 18, 19 and 20, 1999, and pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16.2(c) discovery was to be completed not less than 30 days before a hearing; the respondent had not sought an extension of time for this deposition. c. Dr. Duran and attorney Loper learned of the subpoena only when Dr. Martinez contacted Dr. Duran. On September 27, 1999, attorney Loper filed a motion for protective orders on said subpoena. 33. Also on September 23, 1999, respondent Gifford subpoenaed Lynn Kernan to appear and produce documents on October 1, 1999: a. Again, the respondent did not attempt to clear the October 1, 1999, date with Dr. Duran's counsel nor did she provide Dr. Duran's counsel notice of the deposition. This violates C.R.C.P. 30(b)(1) and C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-12. b. Such conduct also violated C.R.C.P. 16.2(c) as discovery was to be completed not less than 30 days before the October 18 20 hearing, and no motion for extension of discovery period was filed. Again, attorney Loper filed a motion for protective order for these violations. 34. On October 16, 1999 the respondent accompanied her client to a parenting exchange event at a local McDonalds: a. Opposing counsel was not present. b. At that time, the respondent talked to Dr. Duran about several matters concerning the subject of the representation, including: her inability to have delivered certain documents, whether Duran would be willing to provide her client Bronco tickets for the next day, the availability of his attorney over the weekend, and a visitation issue. These statements concerned the subject of attorney Loper's representation of Dr. Duran. c. The incident was videotaped by Dr. Duran. The next day, Attorney Loper again wrote to the respondent ( see paragraph 24 above), admonishing her to refrain from contacting Dr. Duran. 35. The permanent orders hearing occurred on October 18-20, 1999. The court entered its orders on Friday, October 22, 1999. The court found that there was a common-law marriage between the parties. Amy Duran was awarded sole custody of the child, with visitation in Kansas for the father. The court also notified the parties that a special representative would be appointed for the child. Marianne Tims was appointed as the child's representative. 36. Hearing on the remaining issues for permanent orders was set for March 15, 2000. On March 4, 2000 Tims filed her report and made recommendations to the court. 37. After concluding the March 15, 2000 hearing, and on March 17, 2000, the court found the marriage irretrievably broken, and made further orders regarding child visitation and division of property. Despite respondent's assurances to her client and the client's mother throughout the representation, the respondent failed to present evidence on attorney fees. The court did not award any attorney fees because the court found it had already placed the parties on an equal footing. 38. The respondent Gifford filed a post-hearing motion on behalf of her client, asking that the court reconsider its position on several issues, including the failure to award attorney fees. Attorney Loper filed a response that stated that in addition to the court's rationale on the attorney fee issue, respondent Gifford completely failed to provide any evidence or testimony related to the amount of her fees, the reasonableness of her fees, and her rationale for why any portion of those fees should be borne by [Jack Duran]. The respondent Gifford's motion for reconsideration on the attorney fee issue was denied. 39. Subsequently, and on April 25, 2000 Hillary D. Lipton (Lipton) became the court-appointed child's representative. Lipton was to report on compliance issues concerning parenting classes, the visitation plan and expansion of such visitation. Periodic court hearings were also scheduled to ensure compliance. The first review hearing occurred on October 2, 2000. 40. At some point in 2000, the respondent Gifford instructed her client not to communicate with the child's representative. This caused great difficulty for everyone involved, and both the child's representative (Lipton) and the client Amy Duran, believe many of the messages provided by each through the respondent were never received by the other. 41. Judge Juanita L. Rice became the presiding judge on this matter on or about January 3, 2001. 42. On January 19, 2001, the child's representative filed a motion for emergency telephone hearing due to Amy Duran's attempt to cancel a previously scheduled parenting time for Jack on January 20-21, 2001. 43. On January 24, 2001, Lipton filed a motion for issuance of contempt citation against Amy Duran. The motion alleged violations of the court-ordered parenting time between the child and Jack Duran in Kansas. Ms. Lipton's report also noted difficulties in communicating with respondent Gifford: On January 19, 2001 ... the child's representative attempted by motion for emergency hearing to avoid the cancellation of the visit by the petitioner, however, the petitioner and her counsel refused to make themselves available for this hearing.... Petitioner's counsel stated to the office of the undersigned that she does not work on Fridays and was unclear of what the issue was or what this `was about' (despite the petitioner's indication that her counsel was to be preparing `a letter' to the parties of the petitioner's intent to not allow parenting time on January 20 and 21 because she would be attending a wedding in Kansas City.... Petitioner's counsel indicated that she would not be available for this case because she did not work on Fridays and was to attend a settlement conference on another case and was not willing to provide any time during the remainder of the day for the 15 minute telephone hearing .... (emphasis added). A citation to show cause was issued by the court, and a hearing was set for February 22, 2001. 44. Amy Duran failed to personally appear for the February 22, 2001 contempt hearing date. The court set April 17, 2001 as a new date for the contempt matter, and again ordered Amy to be present. A contempt hearing occurred on that date. At that hearing, and while Amy Duran was on the witness stand, the respondent provided a response to her client on a question posed by attorney Lipton. When attorney Lipton asked: Would it surprise you that Gail Edwards believes you're pushing autism on Jacklynn?, the client testified I don't think that's adequate, and the respondent then stated in open court the word: `accurate.' The following exchange then occurred: THE COURT: Ms. Gifford. MS. GIFFORD: She's said adequate. I said accurate. THE COURT: Ms. Gifford, how could you do that? THE WITNESS: I didn't mean. MS. GIFFORD: Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't care what she said. MS. GIFFORD: I apologize. THE COURT: You know that's wrong. MS. GIFFORD: Well, Your Honor, we're trying to get through this. THE COURT: Oh, that's not an excuse for a lawyer giving an answer and you know it. MS. GIFFORD: She just said adequate and the word was accurate. THE COURT: No. No. You know better. I don't want to ever hear that. MS. GIFFORD: I'm sorry. 45. On September 4, 2001, the court agreed that the parenting time expansion was to include overnights with Jack Duran. The child's representative prepared a tentative schedule for the upcoming three months. The child's representative forwarded the proposal to the parties on September 5, 2001. 46. Respondent Gifford responded with a number of restrictions beyond the times of the visit (which was the only issue left for the stipulation). In a letter dated September 25, 2001, the respondent Gifford advised that contrary to court orders, the visits would be supervised or would be cancelled by the petitioner. 47. At a subsequent parent visitation in Kansas, and in front of a police officer and the minor child, Amy Duran because upset and assaulted Jack Duran. Amy Duran was arrested at the scene and charged with battery. As a result, on October 30, 2001, the child's representative requested a forthwith hearing on the matter. 48. A forthwith hearing occurred on November 8, 2001 before Judge Juanita Rice. A video of the incident was reviewed at the hearing; the video demonstrated that Ms. Duran was speaking to the respondent on the phone at the time Ms. Duran assaulted Jack Duran. The matter was continued until November 20, 2001 and Amy Duran was ordered to appear. 49. On November 8, 2001, Amy Duran by and through the respondent filed a motion for parenting time evaluation. The motion requested that either Dr. Claire Poole or Dr. Jean LaCrosse be appointed to conduct the evaluation. 50. Other hearings occurred on November 20, 2001 and December 5, 2001. The other attorneys involved in the matter and Judge Rice state that, at any hearing (from April, 2001 to the present) that Ms. Duran testified, the respondent would supply responses by shaking or nodding her head, or would provide a verbal answer to her client. Judge Rice and the other attorneys also state that the respondent would become very emotional at some of these hearings and would sometimes weep. 51. Amy Duran married Anthony Szot in December 2001. 52. On December 31, 2001 Judge Rice appointed Dr. Jean LaCrosse, Ph.D. to do the parenting time evaluation in the matter. 53. On January 11, 2002, Amy Szot was arrested for a felony theft charge, as well as for failure to appear on another matter. This conduct required another hearing before the court on January 22, 2002. 54. On January 22, 2002, and after the court hearing, the respondent accompanied her client to another parenting exchange: a. The respondent, Amy Szot, and Amy's new father-in-law came to Dr. Duran's home. Dr. Duran came out the door with the minor daughter, Jacklynn. b. At that time, the respondent stated, I am going to examine this child. c. The respondent then started to lift up the coat and shirt and pant leg; and then had the child turn around for further inspection, to look to see if Jacklynn had any bruises, etc. d. It was a cold day. Even the client was bewildered by the respondent's apparent need to examine the child. e. This conduct was outside of the presence of Jack Duran's attorney and without authorization. f. The respondent's statements were a challenge to Dr. Duran's parenting, and concerned the subject of representation. g. The respondent's conduct was of a harassing and demeaning nature. 55. Amy was responsible for the payment of the parenting time evaluation. At some point, Amy provided Dr. LaCrosse with a check for $2,500 that was returned because of insufficient funds. 56. On March 29, 2002, Dr. LaCrosse informed the respondent, attorney Sean Virnich (another lawyer in Loper's firm representing Jack Duran) and the child representative Lipton, of the NSF check. Dr. LaCrosse informed the parties that she would cease all work on the case until the financial situation had been rectified to her satisfaction. As a result, a previously scheduled March 29 appointment with Jacklynn and her father (where Dr. LaCrosse would have an opportunity to see them for an extended time) was cancelled. 57. On March 29, 2002, Dr. LaCrosse received $2,500 via Federal Express from Amy and her family. 58. Dr. LaCrosse confirmed the receipt of the other $2,500 in a letter dated March 29, 2002. In that letter, Dr. LaCrosse further stated: Unfortunately, the events in this particular case have created substantial question about Amy's ability and/or willingness to pay for the court ordered evaluation. Rather than risk being `stiffed' for my work in this matter, I am going to require that funds adequate to cover my estimated future work in this matter be guaranteed. Perhaps they can be provided to me. Perhaps they can be held by her attorney. Perhaps they can be provided to the court. Enclosed is my current itemization of accomplished workand estimated future workin this case. You will note that I am requesting that $8,000 in guaranteed funds be provided. Dr. LaCrosse provided a statement that demonstrated $742.50 of the $2,500 deposit remained, and estimated additional time to explain why a further guaranteed reserve of $8,000 needed to be provided. 59. On that same date (March 29, 2002), respondent Gifford wrote a letter to Dr. LaCrosse. The respondent informed Dr. LaCrosse that Amy was forwarding to her trust account an additional $8,000 to be received by April 7, 2002. The respondent further stated: If the above method of payment is acceptable, I will provide you with a copy of the deposit into my Lawyer's Trust Account once I have received it. I directed Amy to send it to me in good funds (certified/cashier's check, etc.). 60. On about April 8, 2002, the respondent received $8,000 from Amy Szot's family. These funds were deposited into the respondent's COLTAF account on April 22, 2002. 61. During April, 2002, the respondent spoke with Dr. LaCrosse on several occasions and attempted to present her client's case to Dr. LaCrosse. The respondent also wrote a five page letter to Dr. LaCrosse, again asserting her client's position regarding Jack Duran's conduct over the past several years. 62. On April 22, 2002, Amy Szot filed for bankruptcy. The respondent had been aware of Amy's efforts to file bankruptcy. The respondent was listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy for attorney fees owed. 63. On April 26, 2002, Dr. LaCrosse issued her report and recommendations to Judge Rice. In that letter, Dr. LaCrosse confirmed: ... Ms. Gifford has assured me, on several occasions, that she is holding an additional $8,000 in guaranteed reserve for me, which I requested after discovering Amy had given me a bad check. Dr. LaCrosse also informed the judge that the case was difficult because respondent attempted to interject herself in the matter by providing persuasive input. The LaCrosse report was extensive (62 pages in length) and recommended change of custody to the father, Jack Duran. 64. On May 1, 2002, a meeting among the parties occurred: a. Dr. LaCrosse requested $5,448.75 for her work performed as of that date on the evaluation. b. The respondent provided a COLTAF account check (# 1151), in the amount of $5,448.75 to Dr. LaCrosse. c. As a result, $2,551.25 remained in the COLTAF account earmarked for payment to Dr. LaCrosse's evaluation. d. The respondent informed the parties at the meeting that this remaining amount was still in her trust account and available for LaCrosse's testimony at the May 8-9, 2002, hearing. 65. On May 8, 2002, a hearing in front of Judge Rice occurred: a. At the hearing, the respondent suggested answers to her client, while her client was on the stand testifying, by shaking or nodding her head during the testimony. b. The respondent also testified during her cross-examination and direct-examination of witnesses. Judge Rice was required to admonish the respondent approximately nine times not to testify and told the respondent that if she became a witness, she would changing roles in the matter. c. At the conclusion of the hearing, sole custody of the child Jacklynn was awarded to Dr. Duran. 66. On May 9, 2002, Dr. LaCrosse sent the respondent another billing statement for her time spent in preparation for the hearing and for her testimony at the hearing. These charges amounted to $2,300: a. The respondent did not pay these charges, and did not respond to Dr. LaCrosse regarding such billing. b. The respondent has produced a July 31, 2002 billing statement (first provided to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel on October 7, 2002); that billing statement has an entry for May 9, 2002 that she advised client [that she] would apply balance inretainer (sic) on her bill in accordance with our previous discussions. c. The respondent's above statement contained in her July 31, 2002, billing was false. The client did not give the respondent permission to apply the remainder to her attorney fees. The client states that at some point in May the respondent agreed to return the $2500 so that the client could use the money for the supplemental evaluation and a HARE test. The client did not receive the July 31, 2002 billing statement until it was provided to her by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel in October, 2002. 67. After the May 8-9, 2002 hearing, Amy Szot decided that she may need to hire another attorney to represent her. Ms. Szot contacted attorney Bette K. Bushell. 68. On May 13, 2002, attorney Bushell contacted the respondent by letter. Ms. Bushell wanted to meet with the respondent and review the file. Ms. Bushell asked the respondent to contact her immediately so that she could do a proper investigation prior to the next hearing scheduled for July 17, 2002, and noted that supplemental parenting evaluations often take as long as 90 days; thus time was of the essence. 69. The respondent received this letter. Nevertheless, the respondent failed to respond to Ms. Bushell's letter and failed to provide access to the client file. 70. On May 14, 2002, the respondent wrote a check on her trust account and to cash for $64,424.75. This money was then turned into a cashier's check and provided to another client (Showendaller). $551.25 of this money was part of the disputed Duran/LaCrosse funds. The respondent states that this $551.25 error occurred due to an incorrect interest calculation for client Showendaller. 71. On May 22, 2002, the respondent provided her former client with a copy of Dr. LaCrosse's billings for the client's review. Also on May 22, 2002, Dr. LaCrosse wrote to the respondent requesting immediate attention to payment of the bill. The respondent sent a facsimile transmission to Dr. LaCrosse telling her that she had forwarded her invoices to Amy for her review, and that Amy would voice her concerns to [Dr. LaCrosse] by the end of the next week. 72. On May 28, 2002, Amy notified respondent Gifford in writing that respondent should not pay Dr. LaCrosse any monies left in the trust account. Amy further stated, As you know, I am in the process of filing bankruptcy. Amy also asserted that Dr. LaCrosse may have forced her to be in violation of bankruptcy law by forcing her to pay for the evaluation. 73. On May 29, 2002, Amy wrote respondent Gifford another letter (dated May 28, 2002) informing respondent Gifford that the respondent was  not to remove [the money remaining in her trust account] under any reason upon instructions from the mental health board. (emphasis added). $2,000.00 of the $2,551.25 was still in the respondent's COLTAF account on this date. 74. The respondent knew Dr. LaCrosse believed $2,300 of these funds belonged to her, and that Amy Szot believed the funds needed to stay in the respondent's COLTAF account. 75. On May 29, 1999, Dr. LaCrosse notified Judge Rice of her difficulties in receiving the remaining $2,300 in charges from the respondent for her expert witness fees. Dr. LaCrosse provided Judge Rice with a copy of her invoice, her May 9 letter to the respondent, and her May 22 letter to the respondent. Judge Rice forwarded these documents to the Office of Attorney Regulation. 76. On May 29, 2002, Amy's mother, Patricia Behrens, wrote to the respondent and requested an accounting of all fees paid to her on behalf of Amy Szot. Ms. Behrens also requested all billing statements since 1998 to the present. Ms. Behrens requested this information on or before June 3, 2002. The respondent received this request. The respondent did not respond to Ms. Behrens' letter, and did not provide an accounting or billing statements. 77. On June 11, 2002, the respondent filed a motion to withdraw from the dissolution matter. An order granting the motion to withdraw was entered July 9, 2002. 78. On June 21, 2002, the respondent transferred the remaining $2,000 of those funds held in escrow for the LaCrosse evaluation to her operating account for payment of outstanding attorney fees owed by Amy; a. The respondent did so knowing that ownership of said funds was in dispute by Dr. LaCrosse and the client, knowing that the client had not authorized her to take such funds, and knowing that Amy Szot was in bankruptcy proceedings which listed the respondent as a creditor. b. The respondent did not notify her client, Dr. LaCrosse, the bankruptcy court or the district court of her taking this money. 79. On June 21, 2002 attorney Bushell filed an entry of appearance on behalf of Amy Duran. Attorney Bushell also requested that the district court order a supplemental Parenting Plan Evaluation by William Dahlberg, M.D., additional depositions, and clarification of the court's May 9, 2002 order on visitation and parenting responsibility issues. 80. Also on June 21, 2002 attorney Bushell again wrote to the respondent, requesting an appointment to pick up the files that week. The respondent failed to respond to Ms. Bushell's June 21, 2002 letter. 81. Subsequently attorney Bushell made multiple attempts to reach respondent at her office and on her cellular telephone. The respondent did not answer, and attorney Bushell could not leave a voicemail message because the respondent's voice mail boxes were full. 82. On July 6, 2002 attorney Bushell wrote by facsimile transmission to the respondent. Bushell reminded the respondent of the July 17 hearing date. Bushell again requested immediate release of the client files. The respondent received this correspondence. The respondent did not respond. 83. On July 8, 2002 attorney Bushell sent another letter to the respondent by facsimile transmission. Bushell again related attempts to telephone respondent, and an attempt to visit the respondent. Bushell demanded immediate release of the file. The respondent received this letter. 84. The respondent's July 31, 2002 billing statement contains the following entry for 7/8/02: Advised Ms. Bushell our firm would be claiming the $2500 in our trust act per permission from Amy, but would get the 12 boxes together, keeping some necessary and attorney-client documents (sic). This statement was false. (In fact the respondent had already withdrawn these funds). 85. On July 11, 2002 attorney Bushell received seven boxes of the files from the respondent. The respondent kept three boxes, saying she needed to review them for work product and other private attorney matters, and would personally deliver them to the Bushell's office. Despite this assurance, the respondent failed to deliver these materials. None of the seven boxes that were provided that day contained any pleadings. 86. On July 15, 2002, Amy requested the remainder of her money held in the escrow account, which she believed to be around $2,500. Amy requested that the respondent provide those funds by July 19, 2002. The respondent received this request. The respondent did not provide those funds, and did not respond to Amy's request. 87. On July 16, 2002, attorney Bushell again sent a letter to the respondent by facsimile transmission demanding the remaining files before noon the next day. The respondent Gifford responded by letter on July 17 and in that letter stated to attorney Bushell that she could pick up the files at any time. The July 17 letter appears to have been sent by regular mail. 88. On July 17, 2002, in the afternoon, a review hearing occurred before Judge Rice. The matter had to be continued due to attorney Bushell's inability to retrieve pleadings and other crucial documents from the respondent. 89. Attorney Bushell retrieved the remaining files from the respondent's office on July 26, 2002. 90. On July 29, 2002, Amy again wrote to the respondent seeking the $2,500 left in the escrow account. Amy requested that the respondent provide her this money by August 2, 2002. The respondent did not respond to Amy's request and did not tell Amy that she had already taken these funds. 91. On August 16, 2002, attorney Bushell requested return of the $2500 to the client. The respondent said she intended to keep the money for her own use. The respondent has not returned these funds to the client, nor has she provided them to Dr. LaCrosse as intended. 92. On October 7, 2002, the respondent provided to this office a billing statement dated July 31, 2002 (discussed hereinabove). This office forwarded the billing statement to Ms. Szot. 93. The totality of the respondent's billings to the client are as follows: November 30, 1998; February 15, 1999; October 15, 1999; August 31, 2000; and the July 31, 2002 billing statement provided in October, 2002. Prior to May 2002, the respondent collected over $56,000 from Ms. Szot and her mother upon request and without accountings for her time.