Opinion ID: 2498717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Check to Colorado Supreme Court

Text: On February 2, 2010, Respondent presented a check, drawn on Respondent's personal First Bank account, to the Colorado Supreme Court (Supreme Court) for $225.00 for a filing fee in a case. The Supreme Court did not deposit this check until February 18, 2010. On June 2, 2010, Respondent's check was returned to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court never notified Respondent that his check did not clear. On April 21, 2010, Respondent presented a $50.00 check to the Supreme Court for library fees, drawn on Respondent's personal Academy Bank account. This check was returned to the Supreme Court for insufficient funds. [50] Again, the Supreme Court did not alert Respondent that his check failed to clear but instead notified the People that Respondent had presented two insufficient funds checks. [51] On March 21, 2011, after the complaint was filed in this case, Respondent paid the Supreme Court with three money orders to cover these checks, any insufficient fund fees, and his library bill balance. [52] Respondent refused to give the People documents or answer questions about either of these checks at his depositions, again asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, Respondent offered evidence at trial as to this matter. Respondent testified that his First Bank account was open and contained sufficient funds to cover the $225.00 check at the time it was written. At the hearing, he presented two letters from First Bank showing this account was open on February 2, 2010, when he wrote the check. His account was closed on February 18, 2010, due to the manner in which [the account had] been handled. [53] Respondent testified the account was closed due to overdrafts. On February 23, 2010, First Bank sent a letter to Respondent notifying him that when his account was closed a positive balance was left to cover outstanding checks and giving him a refund of $109.53. [54] Because he received a refund, Respondent assumed all the checks he had written on the account had cleared. Respondent admitted that once he learned that his account had been closed, he should have, but did not, go back to his First Bank account statements to verify that all the checks he had written prior to closing had cleared. The People argue that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The People's claim is premised on the allegation that Respondent wrote a check to the Supreme Court on a closed account. While Respondent refused to provide bank statements to the People yet later offered correspondence from the bank in these proceedings, [55] the People admit they could have obtained the statements directly from the bank revealing that the account was, in fact, not closed when the check was written. [56] The People concede that they were unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly presenting a check to the Supreme Court on a closed account. However, at the hearing the People asked the PDJ to conform the complaint to the evidence pursuant to C.R.C.P. 15(b) and find that Respondent was reckless in not ensuring the check had cleared prior to the account's closing. [57] The People claim that such an amendment is proper, as Respondent was on notice throughout this proceeding that he was being charged with an Colo. RPC 8.4(c) violation for the check written to the Supreme Court and thus would not be prejudiced by this amendment. C.R.C.P. 15(b) permits amendment of the pleadings when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties.... An amendment may be made upon a motion by any party at any time during the proceedings, even after judgment. [58] Such an issue, however, must be intentionally and actually tried; it is not enough that a party present some evidence germane to the issue sought to be raised. [59] Here, the issue of whether Respondent was reckless in failing to monitor his closed account was not intentionally and actually tried throughout the disciplinary hearing. The People did not elicit testimony from Respondent on direct examination indicating he should have looked at his First Bank account statement to determine whether all his checks had cleared. In fact, it was not until the People's cross-examination of Respondent on the last day of the hearing that the issue of Respondent's reckless monitoring of his bank account arose. Thus, the PDJ cannot say the issue was intentionally and actually tried, so an amendment is not appropriate here. Accordingly, the Hearing Board finds the People have failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent knowingly wrote a check to the Supreme Court on a closed account in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c).