Park v. People
| Decision Date | 28 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21PDJ082 |
| Parties | MATTHEW S. PARK, #31715 Petitioner: v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Respondent: |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Following a reinstatement hearing, a hearing board denied Matthew S Park (attorney registration number 31715) reinstatement to the practice of law under C.R.C.P. 251.29. Park may not file another petition for reinstatement for two years.
In September 2020, Park was suspended for one year and one day with three months served and the rest stayed upon a two-year period of probation, subject to conditions. Though Park was eligible to seek reinstatement by affidavit under C.R.C.P 251.29(b), he never took the necessary steps to be reinstated by affidavit and to be placed on probation. His disciplinary suspension was premised on his misconduct in practicing law while he was on administrative suspension, including by accepting two personal injury cases and by commingling his personal funds with those of his client and of third-party lien holders.
The Hearing Board concluded that reinstatement was not appropriate because Park failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he followed disciplinary orders and rules following his suspension; that he is fit to practice law; and that he has been rehabilitated from his misconduct.
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31. Please see the full opinion below.
Michele Melnick Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
Matthew S. Park, Petitioner.
Steven Meyrich, Dr. Robert A. Munson, Hearing Board Members.
Cheryl Stevens, Colorado Supreme Court.
Matthew S. Park ("Petitioner") seeks reinstatement of his law license after he was suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, with three months to be served and the rest stayed upon a two-year probation. But Petitioner did not reinstate by affidavit after completing the three-month served portion of his suspension. Instead, he has remained suspended from the practice of law since October 2020, which necessitated that he petition to reinstate his law license. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to practice law, that he has complied with all disciplinary rules and orders, and that he has been rehabilitated from his underlying misconduct. As such, his petition for reinstatement must be denied.
On September 4, 2020, a hearing board issued an "Opinion and Decision Imposing Sanctions Under C.R.C.P. 251.19(b)" in case number 19PDJ057, suspending Petitioner's law license for one year and one day, with three months served and the rest stayed upon a two-year period of probation.[1] The conditions of his probation included his attendance at ethics and trust account schools and, if he practiced law during his period of probation, his participation in quarterly meetings with a financial monitor. Under the terms of his discipline, Petitioner's suspension took effect on October 27, 2020,[2] making him eligible on January 27, 2021, to seek reinstatement by affidavit under C.R.C.P. 251.29(b). Petitioner never took the necessary steps to be reinstated by affidavit and placed on probation, however. He has thus remained suspended since October 2020.
On November 11, 2021, Petitioner filed with Presiding Disciplinary Judge William R. Lucero ("the PDJ") a "Petition for Reinstatement" under C.R.C.P. 251.29(c).[3] Michele Melnick, on behalf of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People"), answered on November 23, 2021.[4] The PDJ set the matter for a reinstatement hearing and directed the parties to submit hearing briefs no later than February 17, 2022.[5] Petitioner did not file his brief until March 2, 2022.
On March 3, 2022, the PDJ presided over Petitioner's reinstatement hearing, held via the Zoom videoconferencing platform. The PDJ was joined on the Hearing Board by lawyer Steven Meyrich and Dr. Robert Munson. Petitioner appeared pro se and Melnick represented the People. The Hearing Board considered testimony from Petitioner and the People's investigator Matthew Gill, who testified as an advisory witness. The PDJ admitted into evidence stipulated exhibits S1-S7 as well as Petitioner's exhibit A. The PDJ also accepted the parties' ten stipulated facts. In addition, the PDJ accepted Petitioner's untimely filed hearing brief.
The findings of fact here are drawn from testimony offered at the reinstatement hearing, where not otherwise noted. Petitioner was admitted to practice law in Colorado on May 11, 2000, under attorney registration number 31715.[6] He is thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Hearing Board in this reinstatement proceeding.[7]
Petitioner completed law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, earning his degree in 2000. After he graduated, his law practice focused on administrative law and filing paperwork with various government agencies. Petitioner testified that he had no experience with litigation or court procedures and never "set foot" in a courtroom. As such, he admits he does not have a firm grasp of procedural deadlines or prehearing requirements.
Petitioner was administratively suspended from the practice of law in 2013 because he did not comply with Colorado's continuing legal education ("CLE") requirements and did not pay his attorney registration fees.[8] He was again administratively suspended on May 1, 2015, after he failed to pay his attorney registration fees for 2015.[9] He was not reinstated from that suspension until January 31, 2019.[10]
Petitioner has been formally disciplined twice. In December 2003, he stipulated to a suspension of ninety days, all stayed upon the completion of a two-year period of probation.[11] That discipline was premised on his failure to supervise nonlawyer staff who had drafted and delivered legal documents in a client matter.[12] He also failed to maintain sufficient trust account records and commingled client funds with his own funds.[13] He successfully completed the terms of the two-year probation.[14] He testified at this reinstatement hearing that because he was represented by a lawyer in that disciplinary matter, he did not learn the PDJ's rules and procedures and relied on his lawyer to meet all the required deadlines.
On September 4, 2020, a hearing board imposed the suspension from which Petitioner now seeks to reinstate.[15] Petitioner defended the case pro se because, he said, he did not have the financial resources to hire a lawyer. In that matter, the hearing board found that Petitioner had accepted two personal injury cases during his administrative suspension, thereby contravening Colo. RPC 3.4(c) and Colo. RPC 5.5(a)(1).[16] He then settled the personal injury matters and deposited the settlement funds directly into his operating account, commingling his client's and a third party's funds with his own funds in violation of Colo. RPC 1.15A(a).[17]
Petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of his 2019 disciplinary case by September 18, 2020, but he did not pay them until March 24, 2021.[18] He acknowledged that he had received a copy of the disciplinary opinion, which set forth certain deadlines. He explained during the reinstatement hearing that he did not forget or neglect to pay the costs but rather lacked the funds to timely pay. At the time the costs became due, he said, he had significant housing and food expenses, but once he had available funds he promptly paid the costs. Although Petitioner said that he provided Gill with documentation evidencing his financial hardship, he did not seek to introduce the documents during this reinstatement hearing. He explained that he had assumed that his financial records would automatically be admitted into evidence at the hearing.
On October 27, 2020, the PDJ issued an "Order and Notice of Suspension," making Petitioner's three-month served suspension effective that day.[19] According to Petitioner, he received a copy of the order. The order directed him to comply with C.R.C.P. 251.28(d), which required him to file an affidavit with the PDJ within fourteen days setting forth his pending matters and attesting that he had notified both his clients and all jurisdictions where he was licensed of his suspension.[20] The affidavit was due by November 10, 2020, but Petitioner did not file it until April 28, 2021.[21] According to Petitioner, he did not ignore the PDJ's orders but rather attempted to timely file documents in his disciplinary case. He did not understand the disciplinary procedures, he explained, because he was generally unfamiliar with litigation deadlines and he did not have counsel to guide him. He also stated that he could not find online resources so that he could learn the rules, and he averred that the People did not help him when he sought guidance.
As discussed above, Petitioner was eligible in his 2019 disciplinary matter to seek reinstatement by affidavit under C.R.C.P. 251.29(b) and to begin his two-year probationary period in January 2021.[22] But he never reinstated by affidavit and was never placed on probation. Instead, he has remained suspended since October 27, 2020.
Petitioner testified that he spent time during his suspension volunteering, working, and completing his CLE requirements. He said that he spent many hours volunteering at the Korean Presbyterian Church, and he explained that he assisted the church to set up its nonprofit status, much like a paralegal would. Gill testified, however, that he did not receive much...
To continue reading
Request your trial