People v. Pruit, Case Number: 18PDJ075
| Decision Date | 25 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 18PDJ075 |
| Citation | 452 P.3d 259 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Brett PRUIT, Pro Hac Vice #17PH5175, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Brett Pruit ("Respondent"), a Texas lawyer, was subject to a pending disciplinary proceeding in Texas when he agreed to represent a Colorado client pro hac vice in a criminal matter. He fraudulently certified on his pro hac vice application that he was not subject to any disciplinary proceeding. While representing his Colorado client he was suspended in Texas, yet he continued to represent the client in violation of the Texas disciplinary order. Respondent also presented a forged Texas suspension agreement to local counsel who was sponsoring his pro hac vice status in order to conceal the effective date of his suspension. Respondent's conduct, which violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c), 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c), warrants disbarment.
On December 3, 2018, Jacob M. Vos, Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"), filed a complaint with Presiding Disciplinary Judge William R. Lucero ("the Court"). That same day, the People sent copies of the complaint and citation by certified mail to Respondent's registered address. Respondent failed to file an answer. By order dated February 11, 2019, the Court entered default, thereby deeming admitted the allegations and claims in the complaint.
On April 18, 2019, the Court held a sanctions hearing under C.R.C.P. 251.15(b). Vos represented the People; Respondent did not appear. During the hearing, the Court considered testimony from J. Matthew DePetro and admitted the People's exhibits 1-6.
The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the averments in the admitted complaint, presented here in condensed form. Respondent is not licensed to practice law in Colorado. He was admitted to practice law in Texas in 1983. Respondent is subject to this Court's jurisdiction in this disciplinary proceeding through his pro hac vice admission under registration number 17PH5175.1
In March of 2015, Respondent was served with a Texas disciplinary complaint, which alleged that he had settled a 2013 case without client authority. That matter continued to proceed through the Texas disciplinary process.
In early August 2017, Respondent contacted J. Matthew DePetro, a Colorado attorney and his former high school classmate. Respondent wanted to represent client Shelia Tomasek in a misdemeanor criminal case in Douglas County, Colorado. He asked DePetro to serve as local counsel to his pro hac vice admission.
DePetro had never served as local counsel before, but he researched the requirements and agreed to serve as Respondent's local counsel in Colorado. DePetro inquired into Respondent's status with the Texas bar and learned that he was in good standing with no reported discipline. Respondent confirmed that he was in good standing in Texas.
On August 16, 2017, Respondent filed a verified motion for pro hac vice admission in Tomasek's case. Both he and DePetro signed the motion. In the motion, Respondent represented that he was not subject to any pending disciplinary action. That statement was false, however, because at the time Respondent was subject to the pending 2015 Texas disciplinary action. On August 18, 2017, Respondent's motion for pro hac vice admission was approved by the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Registration. On the same day, the Douglas County court issued a corresponding order approving Respondent's pro hac vice admission in Tomasek's case.
On September 6, 2017, Respondent agreed in the Texas disciplinary case to a suspension of his law license for thirty months, all but three months stayed. The served portion of the suspension was to begin on November 1, 2017, and was to end on January 31, 2018. The remaining portion of the suspension was stayed subject to a number of conditions. Respondent was also required to notify his clients, courts, and opposing counsel of his suspension. But he failed to follow those requirements. Respondent has never been reinstated from the served portion of that suspension.
On December 18, 2017, Tomasek pleaded not guilty. Respondent was present with her and signed a notice of future court appearance and a case management order. He did not, however, notify Tomasek or the Douglas County court of his Texas suspension.
On February 5, 2018, Respondent telephoned DePetro, stating that he had been injured in a car accident the previous day. DePetro agreed to appear for Respondent at a hearing in Tomasek's case that same day. When DePetro arrived, he learned that the hearing had been vacated. DePetro telephoned Respondent, who assured him that he and Tomasek were ready for the trial set for March 6, 2018.
On March 5, 2018, DePetro was in the Douglas County courthouse for another matter when he learned that the judge in Tomasek's case was looking for him. DePetro checked the docket and saw Tomasek's name. He also learned from the clerk that Respondent had called and left a voicemail message stating that he would not be in court due to his Texas suspension. DePetro phoned Respondent, who confirmed his Texas suspension but provided few details and refused to answer DePetro's questions. DePetro returned to the courtroom and spoke with the deputy district attorney, who agreed to seek a continuance. The court continued the matter until March 29, 2018.
De Petro spoke with Tomasek, who did not know about Respondent's suspension. She told DePetro that Respondent had called her on March 1 to tell her that her case had been continued until April. DePetro then notified the court that Respondent had been suspended and moved to withdraw as Respondent's local counsel. DePetro also investigated Respondent's status in Texas and learned that he was indeed suspended.
On March 6, 2018, DePetro phoned the Texas bar to confirm the details of Respondent's suspension and learned that Respondent's suspension took effect on November 1, 2017. DePetro requested copies of the disciplinary paperwork from both the Texas bar and Respondent. That same day, Respondent sent DePetro paperwork indicating that he had signed an agreement to be suspended on January 15, 2018, with the served portion beginning on February 1, 2018, and ending on April 30, 2018. But that agreement was a forgery created by Respondent. That agreement also included the forged signatures of Texas District 9-1 Presiding Member Dirk Jordan and Texas Bar Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Dean Schaffer.
In this matter, Respondent violated four Rules of Professional Conduct:
The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ("ABA Standards ")2 and Colorado Supreme Court case law guide the imposition of sanctions for lawyer misconduct.3 When imposing a sanction after a finding of lawyer misconduct, the Court must consider the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, and the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct. These three variables yield a presumptive sanction that may be adjusted based on aggravating and mitigating factors.
Duty : Respondent violated duties of candor he owed to his client, the court, and local counsel. He also violated the duty owed to the legal profession to comply with the Texas order of suspension and to cease practicing law once suspended.
Mental State : The Court's order entering default establishes that Respondent knowingly violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c), 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), and 8.4(c). The admitted facts in the complaint and DePetro's testimony established, in fact, that Respondent committed the proven misconduct with an intentional state of mind. Respondent was served with the Texas disciplinary complaint in 2015; that action had been pending for two years when he certified to the Douglas County court in August 2017 that he was not subject to a pending disciplinary action. When he entered into an agreement to a suspension in Texas three months later, he concealed that suspension from DePetro, his client, and the court. He continued to practice law while suspended, including by appearing at a hearing with Tomasek and signing two court documents. When he was caught, he took great measures to cover up his misconduct, including forging the suspension agreement. These actions evince an intentional mental state.
In addition, DePetro credibly testified that Respondent had engaged in an ongoing course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial