Opinion ID: 2499817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Respondent's Lack of Competence and Communication While Representing Hoch

Text: As Rice pressed Respondent for discovery and disclosures, Hoch's relationship with Respondent became strained. Throughout the early part of 2008, Hoch anticipated attending mediation, which never materialized. Then, in mid-summer 2008, Respondent alerted Hoch to Rice's pending discovery requests, and the two men arranged to meet to review the box of documents Hoch had given Respondent. Hoch testified that Respondent canceled their scheduled meetings approximately five times in early August 2008, while Respondent offered contradictory testimony: at turns he claimed that Hoch canceled several times, while at other times he maintained that each person asked to reschedule the meeting between one and three times. On August 14, 2008, Hoch's wife planned to attend a scheduled meeting with Respondent at his home office. That day, she called Respondent to notify him she was running late, but Respondent threatened to withdraw if she failed to appear promptly. Agitated, Hoch's wife called Hoch, who immediately dropped everything [he] was doing at a work site to salvage the situation. When Hoch arrived, he apologized for being late and begged Respondent to remain on the case. He testified, I told [Respondent], this is all I've got. If you resign, I lose $150,000.00. I was almost on my knees. . . . It was a total collapse for me. My whole business was on the line. But Respondent refused to relent and told Hoch he wanted nothing more to do with the case. [48] The same day, Respondent drafted a letter to Hoch announcing his intention to withdraw from his case and notifying Hoch of his right to object to the withdrawal. [49] In the days following, Hoch placed countless telephone calls to Respondent, who refused to return those calls, so Hoch sought Secrist's assistance in drafting a motion objecting to Respondent's withdrawal on the grounds that it would materially adversely effect [sic] the legal interest of [Hoch] and [his] financial integrity. [50] Respondent never filed with the court a response to Hoch's objection or a motion to withdraw. Instead, he simply waited for a month or more [51] to resume contact with Hocha key period during which Orr's summary judgment motions were fileduntil one day Hoch got a call from [Respondent] like nothing ever happened, telling him that they needed to get the case back on track. When Respondent again took up Hoch's case in the fall of 2008, he turned his attention toward responding to Orr's discovery requests. To that end, he invited the Hochs back to his office, where they spent several hours going through the box of documents in Respondent's possession. [52] Hoch testified that at some point, Respondent discontinued the review and sent the Hochs home with all of the documents. Respondent had the Hochs sign a piece of paper promising to return the documents and then instructed them, according to Hoch, to go through the documents Orr had sent them, decide what was legit and not, make a set of copies for each named party to the litigation, and mail the copies. The Hochs later returned the documents to Respondent, as they vowed they would. [53] Sometime thereafter, Respondent also charged Hoch with the task of replying to Orr's interrogatories. Respondent testified it was just silly to expect he could answer the interrogatories, since only Hoch had the requisite information to respond to them. Hoch recalled thinking, this isn't my job; I have no idea what I'm doing, but Respondent only counseled Hoch to do the best job he could, while remaining adamant that Hoch was responsible for drafting the responses. Hoch testified Respondent never offered to review a draft, so Hoch did what he could and sent out the resulta one-page, to whom it may concern memorandum. [54] Hoch recalled next interacting meaningfully with Respondent in February 2009, when Respondent telephoned him to discuss the court's January 31, 2009, order directing Hoch to release any lis pendens relating to his mechanic's liens. Hoch remembered being devastated by the news and expressing his irritation with Respondent, who hung up on him. Hoch then made scores of unreturned telephone calls to Respondent. After almost a month passed with no communication, Hoch emailed Respondent, DEAR JIM WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM YOU FOR A WHILE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU HAVE FOUND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE. PLEASE LET ME KNOW SOMETHING. [55] Respondent responded the same day, only to say, Please pay your bill. [56] Hoch testified he felt in total disarray over the whole case, so he once again sought Secrist's help to draft a March 16, 2009, motion notifying the court that Respondent had abandoned him, leaving him legally helpless and exposed and at the mercy of his legal counsel, and asking for additional time to locate new counsel. [57] Respondent filed a motion to withdraw nine days later. [58] The People's Claim I asserts that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.1, which mandates lawyers provide their clients competent representation, by failing to thoroughly investigate the facts of the case and conduct discovery. In addition, the People aver in Claim III that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a) and (b) by failing to communicate adequately with Hoch. Respondent challenges these charges. He contends the People have failed to acknowledge the degree of difficulty of this case resulting from the faulty liens filed by Secrist, and he insists he did everything a conscientious lawyer would do in the same situation. The Hearing Board concludes the People have satisfied their burden of proving these two claims. Regardless of the strength of Hoch's case and the validity of the liens when Respondent accepted the case, Respondent's duty compelled him to provide Hoch competent representation. Yet Respondent entirely neglected his responsibility to respond to discovery, foisting that task entirely onto Hoch. Not only did Respondent instruct Hoch to review and select documents for production, but he demanded Hoch respond to Orr's interrogatories, despite Hoch's repeated objections that he did not understand how to do so. Both tasks required, at a minimum, the safeguard of a lawyer's review to guarantee proper objections were made and privileges protected. But Respondent failed to exercise any oversight, contrary to the methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners [59] and in violation of Colo. RPC 1.1. In addition, during the course of the representation, Respondent twice dropped out of communication with Hoch for extended periods of time in violation of Colo. RPC 1.4(a) and (b). The first instance, in August 2008, left Hoch in limbo for several weeks without certainty as to whether Respondent continued to represent him. Indeed, Respondent's failure to explain to Hoch whether he would file a motion to withdraw prevented Hoch from making an informed decision concerning the representation. The second instance, in early 2009, lasted for more than a month; not only did Respondent fail to keep Hoch reasonably informed of the status of his case during that time, but Respondent declined to respond to Hoch's requests for information until Hoch came current on his account. As such, the Hearing Board concludes Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.1 and 1.4(a) and (b).