Opinion ID: 2499817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Refusal to Return Hoch's File

Text: In July 2009, Hoch informed the court he had been unable to recover his file from Respondent, and the court issued a minute order on July 20, 2009, directing Respondent to provide Hoch with his original file within fifteen days. [60] Instead, Respondent sent an August 6, 2009, letter to the court, in which he asserted a retaining lien on Hoch's file in the amount of about $28,000.00. [61] Wrote Respondent, I am pleased to provide the file to Mr. Hoch, as he knows, if he provides some reasonable collateral for his outstanding fees. [62] The court set the matter for a November 20, 2009, hearing, during which Respondent represented himself and Hoch appeared pro se. At the hearing, Hoch testified Respondent had the whole box of everything, including Hoch's subcontract with Orr, invoices, records of payment, change orders, and correspondence. [63] Respondent, in turn, acknowledged that Hoch gave him a handful of documents at the outset of the case [64] and testified the Hochs had a binder about an inch thick [65] of documents they provided to him. He also conceded that in the fall of 2008 he sent a big box of documents home with the Hochs, but only after having them sign a slip of paper agreeing to return them to [him] in two or three weeks. [66] And he admitted his billing records reflect that the Hochs returned these documents in early January 2009. [67] Three days later, the court issued an order prohibiting Respondent from continuing to assert a retaining lien upon Hoch's file. The court observed that although Respondent substantially litigated the case, a significant portion of the litigation that is reflected in the Court's files concern[s] disclosure disputes and discovery disputes that were easily avoidable, such that it could not find the amount of litigation exerted to defend Mr. Hoch's liens that were patently invalid to be reasonable. [68] Accordingly, the court ordered Respondent to provide Hoch a copy of his file, including documents but excluding work product, within ten days. Rather than comply with the order, Respondent waited twenty-eight days to send a letter to the court seeking reconsideration. [69] Two months later, Hoch wrote to the court on February 17, 2010, to report that Respondent had not complied with the court's order. [70] The court took action on March 12, 2010, in a minute order, ruling that reversal of its previous order was unwarranted and commanding Respondent to provide Hoch a copy of his file within fifteen days. [71] Respondent neither complied nor responded until April 25, 2010, when he filed an objection to the order expressing concern about the competence and the ethical conduct of the court. [72] Hoch then contacted the court clerk telephonically on June 9, 2010, [73] and filed a June 16, 2010, pro se motion to alert the court that Respondent had not yet returned his file. [74] With no response from Respondent in the following weeks, Hoch filed a September 1, 2010, status report with the court seeking remedial and punitive sanctions for contempt of court and noting Respondent had filed a separate attorney's fee collection lawsuit in San Miguel County (the San Miguel litigation) against him. [75] Respondent replied a week later, contradicting his earlier statements by contending that he had already returned `the file' to Mr. Hoch in November 2008, and that Hoch, in turn, sent his only copy of `the file' to defendant's counsel `Rice.' [76] Respondent claimed Orr therefore had two copies of the file and, astonishingly, moved the court to compel Orr to return its extra copy to Hoch. [77] Hoch objected, remarking that Respondent's statements were incompatible with his earlier averments and noting that Respondent's behavior continued to jeopardize Hoch's case. [78] Hoch formally moved for remedial contempt of court against Respondent on November 4, 2010, [79] and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing in July 2011. At the time of the disciplinary hearing in late June 2011, Respondent had not tendered to Hoch a copy of his file. On July 21, 2010, Respondent initiated the San Miguel litigation against Hoch to recover unpaid attorney's fees. Hoch was forced to retain new counsel, Erin Johnson (Johnson), to defend him in that action. [80] Johnson also agreed to represent Hoch in his remaining claims in the La Plata litigation. Respondent has recently warned Hoch and Johnson to expect to defend against another suit, this time in Montrose County, alleging abuse of service of process. The People argue Respondent has violated Colo. RPC 1.16(d) by failing to return Hoch's file and Colo. RPC 3.4(c) by disobeying the court's repeated directives to do so. Respondent challenges these claims, maintaining he would do anything to comply with court orders, but he takes antipodal positions in defending his failure to return Hoch's file. He first contends Hoch never gave him any documents at the start of the litigation, and thus he had nothing in his possession to surrender. But discordantly, he then says he was ordered only to return the original file, which he claims he does not haveimplying he may have a copy of the file but was not directed to return itsaying, If I had the original file, I would have given it to [Hoch]. Next, he insinuates his only obligation under the court's orders was to tender to Hoch a paper file, which he also insists he does not have: I just don't have a paper file. I have an electronic file. And this defense shades into his last, which appears to be founded on the assumption that because he scanned documents into his electronic file, he added value to those documents, thereby transforming them into attorney work product. Respondent's defenses hold no water. His first is nothing but chicanery: Respondent's own billing statements indicate Hoch return[ed] the file to him in January 2009, [81] confirming that, at least at that point, he had something tangible to surrender. Respondent's attempts to differentiate his obligation to return Hoch's original paper file from his duty to surrender an electronic copy thereof are also disingenuous. Although the court's July 20, 2009, minute order directed Respondent to return his original file, two subsequent court orders drew no such distinction, merely ordering Respondent to provide to Hoch a copy of his file. [82] And none of the three orders ever distinguish between hard paper copies and electronically scanned and stored copies. Similarly, the scope of Colo. RPC 1.16(d) is not delimited by the manner in which a client's papers or property are stored; regardless of the format, such material is to be surrendered upon termination of the attorney-client relationship. Finally, Respondent's broad-based assertion of the attorney work product privilege, in an effort to shield from surrender any document to which he adds value, evinces an unreasonably capacious understanding of that doctrine. Personal attorney work product, encompassing those documents a lawyer need not surrender to clients upon termination under Colo. RPC 1.16(d), extends only to that portion of the file, such as firm administrative documents, conflicts checks, personnel assignments, and personal lawyer notes reflecting attorney impressions, that is not needed to protect the client's interests . . . . [83] Respondent's theorythat the mere act of selecting documents to scan draws on a lawyer's skill and expertise and thus creates work product out of materials otherwise needed to protect the client's interestsdoes not accord with the narrow definition of personal attorney work product in the context of Colo. RPC 1.16(d). [84] The Hearing Board thus concludes Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.16(d) and 3.4(c) by declining to surrender to Hoch his file, particularly because his refusal flew in the face of three explicit court orders directing him to do so. Respondent's prevarication while refusing to surrender these materials, perfectly illustrated by his assertion in 2009 of a retaining lien on a file he now claims he returned in 2008, is matched only by his unabashed disobedience of three court directives over the course of almost two years. His intransigence in this matter has severely prejudiced Hoch's interests and completely disregarded the La Plata County court's authority.