Opinion ID: 2329269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Representation of Mark Allen

Text: The established rule violations in this matter concern Respondent's representation of Mark Allen (Allen), an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADMAX) in Florence, Colorado. [2] In the summer of 2008, Allen hired Respondent to file a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or a motion challenging Allen's conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He had been convicted over ten years earlier of assault of a postal employee, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and related charges. On August 27, 2008, Allen's mother, Joan Allen, wired a $30,000.00 retainer to Respondent's bank account. Respondent then hired a forensic psychiatrist to perform an evaluation of Allen, which was conducted on October 5, 2008. Having sent Respondent numerous letters inquiring about the status of his matter, Allen terminated Respondent's services and demanded the return of his retainer and client file on March 30, 2009. Respondent then spoke with Allen, stating that he was awaiting several pending judicial decisions that might bear on the proper procedural route for Allen's matter. On June 16, 2009, Allen again sent Respondent a letter demanding the refund of his retainer and the return of his client file. In response, Respondent promised to visit Allen within two to three weeks. On July 8, 2009, Allen filed a request for investigation with the People. Allen reiterated his desire to terminate Respondent in late 2009 after Respondent cancelled his scheduled visits with Allen, requesting that Respondent return his retainer and client file. Allen agreed to allow Respondent to continue working on his matter when Respondent pledged in December 2009 that he would soon file a motion on his behalf. But in January and February 2010, Allen once more demanded the return of his retainer and client file. Respondent's license to practice in Texas was suspended for two years for misconduct in unrelated client matters, effective January 1, 2010, and his license to practice in Colorado was suspended in reciprocal discipline on April 22, 2010. Respondent admits he never filed a pleading on Allen's behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Respondent indicates he delayed in doing so because he was awaiting relevant case law and having difficulties in obtaining a new medical expert witness report. Respondent has not returned any portion of Allen's retainer and has spent that sum of money. An accounting Respondent provided to the People on October 21, 2009, stated that Respondent had earned $15,750.00 of the $30,000.00 retainer. Respondent admits, for the purposes of accounting, that as of the date of an accounting he provided to the People, [3] he owed Allen and Allen's mother at least $9,687.00. [4] He also concedes that he exercised dominion or ownership over such funds held for Allen's benefit. [5] However, Respondent denies knowing that he was keeping at least $9,6870.00 [sic] of funds he had not earned, knowing that such funds should be returned to his client because he had not earned them and knowing that keeping such funds was not authorized. [6] Instead, Respondent claims he believed that the fee arrangement with Allen was a flat-fee and as a Texas attorney, he did not need to deposit same into a trust account. [7] In addition, he denies the People's allegation that he did not have permission from the client to use the funds for his personal purposes, arguing instead that he did not believe that he needed such permission from Allen inasmuch as he was acting in the capacity as a Texas attorney and that the fee was a flat fee deemed earned upon receipt and that he need not deposit same into a trust account. [8]