Opinion ID: 2498805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Matters

Text: Respondent represented six different clients in separate EEOC matters filed against the United States Postal Service (USPS): Stormy A. Blood (Blood), [17] Delisa M. Terrell (Terrell), [18] Louise A. Lucero (Lucero), [19] Michael Garcia (Garcia), [20] Elizabeth Boisse (Boisse), [21] and Vernon Perry (Perry) [22] (collectively, the EEOC clients). Respondent represented the EEOC clients prior to his suspension on August 15, 2009, and continued to work on each of their cases after his suspension took effect. [23] Specifically, Respondent filed a witness list with the district court on behalf of Blood on August 25, 2009. [24] On October 8, 2009, Respondent filed a response to USPS's motion to dismiss on Terrell's behalf. [25] In addition, on October 14, 2009, Respondent filed a response to the USPS's motion for a decision without a hearing on Lucero's behalf and then continued to work on Lucero's case as her attorney until August 19, 2010. Further, on October 19, 2009, Respondent filed a response to the USPS's motion for a decision without a hearing in the Perry matter. Respondent continued to represent Perry until August 20, 2010. Later, on November 20, 2009, Respondent sent a settlement letter to opposing counsel in the Garcia matter in which he referred to Garcia as his client and negotiated attorney's fees and costs as part of the settlement. Respondent was still representing Garcia as of August 31, 2010. Finally, on December 17, 2009, Respondent sent another settlement letter to opposing counsel in the Boisse matter, referring to Boisse as his client and negotiating attorney's fees and costs. Respondent never notified Lucero, Garcia, Boisse, or Perry of his suspension, and he did not comply with C.R.C.P. 251.28(a) and (b) with respect to the EEOC clients, thereby violating Colo. RPC 3.4(c). By continuing to practice law while suspended, Respondent also violated Colo. RPC 5.5, which prohibits a lawyer from practicing law in this jurisdiction without a law license issued by the Colorado Supreme Court. Finally, by neglecting to notify the EEOC clients that he had been suspended and continuing to allow them to believe he was a licensed attorney, Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c).