Opinion ID: 2600234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 29

Heading: General Allegations in Barrington Matter

Text: Scott Barrington hired respondent on about October 16, 2002, for representation in a DUI case. The first court date was November 21, 2002. Mr. Barrington gave respondent a $500 check and signed a fee agreement on October 16, 2002. An attorney client relationship was formed between the respondent and Mr. Barrington, 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. Respondent told Mr. Barrington that he would change the court date for the first appearance. Respondent stated to Mr. Barrington that the purpose of that date change was to give the DA enough time to review the case so that Mr. Barrington would not have to appear in court an excessive number of times. Mr. Barrington spoke to respondent only one other time after the first meeting. That other conversation was in November 2002, and respondent stated at that time that he was taking care of all that he had mentioned to Mr. Barrington. Respondent confirmed that Mr. Barrington did not have to appear on November 21. Mr. Barrington did not appear on November 21 because of what respondent told him about changing the date. Mr. Barrington continually tried to contact respondent with no success. Finally, Mr. Barrington decided to go to court to learn the status of his case. He learned that a bench warrant had issued for his arrest. He then advised the DA of the problems that he was having with respondent. He was offered a plea to DWAI which he took. He received a fine of $595 and community service of 24 hours. Since that time Mr. Barrington has sent certified mail to respondent about this case asking for his money back. Complainant has not received any response. Respondent did not file any response to the request for investigation in this matter although the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel sent it to him properly according to C.R.C.P. 251.1, et seq.