Opinion ID: 2602333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Claims V, VI, VII and VIII

Text: In 1997, Jim Lottig (Lottig) retained Powell on a contingency fee basis to sue certain individuals who built Lottig's residence. Powell commenced the civil action and engaged in some investigation and discovery. In May 2000, Lottig settled with one of the defendants, and the civil action against the other defendants continued. [1] By September 2000, Lottig had not heard from Powell concerning the case, and he attempted to contact Powell to learn its status. Thereafter, Lottig called Powell and insisted that Powell dismiss the case against the remaining defendants. Powell did not agree. Approximately one week later, Lottig again called Powell and told him to dismiss the case. Once again Powell expressed his disagreement. Lottig never heard from Powell again. On October 20, 2000, Lottig learned that the case had been set for trial and had been vacated. Powell had not provided notice to Lottig of a pre-trial conference nor of the trial date. The case was subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute. Lottig tried repeatedly to contact Powell concerning the matter, but Powell did not return Lottig's messages or otherwise contact Lottig. Lottig requested that Powell return his files and documents. Powell neither responded to the request or returned the documents. Powell violated Colo. RPC 1.3(neglect of a legal matter) by failing to keep Lottig apprised of the status of the case, failing to advise Lottig of the pre-trial conference and trial dates, and failing to notify Lottig of the dismissal of the case. Powell violated Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(failure to communicate) by failing to communicate with Lottig concerning the status of his legal matter and failing to promptly comply with Lottig's reasonable requests for information. The facts established by the entry of default demonstrate that after Lottig instructed Powell to dismiss the case, Powell effectively deserted and/or rejected Lottig, the case he had filed on Lottig's behalf and his professional responsibilities to his client. Such misconduct is abandonment. Abandonment was defined in People v. Carvell, No. 99PDJ096 (Colo. PDJ September 11, 2000), 29 Colo. Law. 137 (November 2000), 2000 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 26 as follows: To find abandonment rather than merely neglect, there must be proof that the attorney  during a given time period  was required to accomplish specific professional tasks for the client, failed to accomplish those tasks, and failed to communicate with the client. The proof must objectively indicate that the attorney has deserted, rejected and/or relinquished the professional responsibilities owed to the client. By his abandonment, Powell terminated his services, triggering the obligations set forth in Colo. RPC 1.16(d)(upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, including surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled). Powell violated Colo. RPC 1.16(d) by failing to return Lottig's file and documents in the civil action. By failing to update his registered business and home addresses with the Office of Attorney Registration, Powell failed to comply with C.R.C.P. 227(A)(2)(b)(every attorney shall file a supplemental statement of change in the information previously submitted, including home and business addresses, within thirty days of such change). Every year lawyers are required to re-register and pay annual registration fees. At that time they are reminded of their obligation to maintain current addresses with the Office of Attorney Registration. See C.R.C.P. 227(A)(2)(a). Since Powell was originally registered in 1992, he had received at least five re-registration forms by the time of the events in this case. It is a reasonable inference from those facts that Powell was aware of the requirement contained in C.R.C.P. 227(A)(2)(b) and that his failure to maintain an accurate address with the Office of Attorney Registration was knowing misconduct and a violation of Colo. RPC 3.4(c)(a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal). The Complaint also alleged that Powell's failure to respond to the request for investigation violated Colo. RPC 8.1(b)(knowing failure to respond reasonably to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority) and C.R.C.P. 251.5(d)(failure to respond without good cause shown to a request by the Regulation Counsel). The facts set forth in the Complaint and in Exhibit 1, the Combined Report of Investigation, [2] reveal that all efforts of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel to locate and/or communicate with Powell after that office received the request for investigation were unsuccessful. The letter sent to Powell requesting a response to the request for investigation was returned marked Moved, left no address. Efforts by the Sheriff to find and personally serve Powell were unsuccessful. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that Powell was ever aware that he had been requested to supply information to the disciplinary authorities. [3] Absent facts showing such awareness, it cannot be concluded that Powell knowingly failed to respond to a request from the disciplinary authorities. Consequently there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Powell violated Colo. RPC 8.1(b). The default entered by the PDJ on that alleged violation is set aside and the charge is dismissed.