Opinion ID: 2204353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Respondent Violated Colo. RPC 3.2, as Alleged in Claim V (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client)

Text: In case number 03CV126, the parties filed over 400 pleadings. To be certain, Respondent did not file all of them. However, the record demonstrates that Respondent filed repetitive motions that delayed the proceedings, many of which were frivolous. Furthermore, she established a pattern and practice of filing matters at the last possible minute as a tactic to delay proceedings. Respondent filed her initial complaint in the state court, 03CV126 raising COCCA and fraud claims, the day before a scheduled auction related to her clients' property due to their failure to pay homeowners association assessments. She also filed a lis pendens to frustrate that auction. However, she did not serve the complaint or notify anyone that it had been filed, even though the racketeering complaint named many of the parties and counsel of record involved in the still pending 99CV227 case. Eight days after she received a ruling denying her motion to set aside the January 23, 2003 order in 99CV277 for fraud on the court, Respondent voluntarily dismissed 03CV126, dropped the lis pendens, filed the federal court RICO case repeating many of the same grounds, and filed a new lis pendens. Respondent again did not serve or notify any of the named defendants, which still included the counsel of record representing her opponents in 99CV277. While asking for extensions of time to amend her RICO case in federal court, she moved to reopen her case in 03CV126, the day before a planned meeting of the defendants. [44] At 5:28 AM on March 11, 2004, immediately prior to a hearing Judge Lass had scheduled in 99CV277, Respondent filed a motion to recuse Judge Lass. [45] The motion does not contain a Rule 121 § 1-15(8) certification stating that she had notified opposing counsel of the proposed motion and had discussed it with them. After the court denied that motion, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected Respondent's Rule 21 petition for a rule to show cause. On December 15, 2005, Respondent was given a thirty day notice that 03CV126 (her COCCA case) would be dismissed for lack of prosecution. [46] On January 17, 2006 (the thirtieth day after the final weekend and holiday), she filed another motion to recuse the Judge Lass, this time in 03CV126. [47] This motion also does not contain a Rule 121 § 1-15(8) certification. With the trial in 03CV126 scheduled to commence on November 21, 2006, Respondent filed another Verified Renewed Motion to Recuse, Stating Additional Grounds at 10:41 PM on November 20, 2006. [48] This motion also did not contain a Rule 121 § 1-15(8) certification. Respondent followed up this motion with a Penultimate Renewed Motion to Recuse filed on February 23, 2007. [49] This evidence demonstrates that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 3.2.