People v. Belfor, 28311
Decision Date | 05 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 28311,28311 |
Citation | 197 Colo. 223,591 P.2d 585 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Bailey Allan BELFOR, Attorney-Respondent. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert B. Kane, Sp. Prosecutor, Denver, for complainant.
George J. Nichols, III, Lakewood, for attorney-respondent.
The Supreme Court Grievance Committee, after a full disciplinary hearing, recommended that the respondent, Bailey Allan Belfor, be suspended for not less than one year and that he be assessed the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. ABA Standards for Lawyer Disciplinary and Disability Proceedings § 6.3. The respondent filed exceptions to the findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations of the Grievance Committee which we have concluded are without merit. We adopt the recommendations of the Grievance Committee and suspend Bailey Allan Belfor from the practice of law for a period of one year and assess costs at $562.95.
The respondent's multifaceted violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Disciplinary Rules require severe sanctions. The chain of events which brought about the disciplinary proceeding centers on a civil action to foreclose a lien. The respondent was counsel for Robert N. Poole and Anthony C. Bottagaro, a joint venture doing business under the name and style of Poole and Bottagaro. A civil action to foreclose a lien was filed against the joint venture by Harold E. Bergkamp, Inc., a building contractor. Harold E. Bergkamp, Inc. built an office building for the joint venture and had not been paid for some of the work on the building and for certain change orders. The foreman of the building project was Robert E. Francis, whose testimony was essential to establish the contractor's claim in the lien foreclosure action.
Poole and Bottagaro had come to know Francis well during the time that the building was being constructed. In early 1975, the foreman approached Poole and indicated that his testimony might be helpful to the joint venture in the lien foreclosure action. Poole caused the respondent to be made a party to the conversation. Francis, the foreman, then told the respondent that his favorable testimony would only be available, and would only be made known, after a judgment against him was satisfied. The judgment against the foreman had been obtained by Silver State Placements, Inc., an employment agency that had arranged for Bergkamp to hire Francis. Francis told the respondent that Bergkamp had agreed to pay the employment fee and that Bergkamp also owed him a bonus for work he had done on the office building.
The employment agency obtained a default judgment against Francis in September, 1974, nearly a year before Francis met with the respondent. The respondent, in an effort to obtain the cooperation of Francis, suggested that he represent Francis as an intervenor in the pending lien foreclosure suit. To further the proposal, the respondent prepared an intervention agreement which would have put Francis in a preferred position with respect to Poole and Bottagaro in the event that Francis and the joint venture were successful in obtaining judgment on their counterclaims against Bergkamp.
Francis rejected the respondent's proposal and said that he would not cooperate until the judgment for the employment fee was satisfied. The respondent then volunteered his services as attorney for Francis and negotiated a compromise and settlement of the employment agency's judgment for $1,500. The $1,500 was paid by respondent from funds provided by the joint venture. To insure that Francis complied with his agreement, the respondent caused an installment note, bearing the date of May 9, 1975, to be prepared to reflect the amount paid to the employment agency. The note, however, was not signed until March 29, 1976, the evening before the mechanic's lien foreclosure action was to come to trial and the date when respondent and his clients, Poole and Bottagaro, learned that Francis was not going to provide favorable testimony.
When...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Sheatsley
...contingent upon the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case." 3 The Committee relies upon the case of People v. Belfor, 197 Colo. 223, 591 P.2d 585 (1979). In Belfor, an attorney representing a joint venture was defending a foreclosure on a lien arising out of a construction pro......
-
Just in Case Bus. Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray
...of compensation to a witness contingent upon the content of his testimony or the outcome of the case.”).2 In People v. Belfor, 197 Colo. 223, 226, 591 P.2d 585, 587 (Colo.1979), an attorney was disciplined under DR 7–109, among other rules, for arranging payment of a judgment against the wi......
-
v.
...is both illegal and against public policy to pay or tender something of value to a witness in return for his testimony." People v. Belfor, 591 P.2d 585, 587 (Colo. 1979) (quoting Model Code of Prof'l Responsibility DR7-102 (1979)). But the prohibition on paying witnesses a contingency fee f......
-
People v. Belfor, 80SA143
...of the Code of Professional Responsibility resulted in a one year suspension which commenced on March 5, 1979. People v. Belfor, 197 Colo. 223, 591 P.2d 585 (1979). Shortly after the one year suspension ended, the respondent failed to comply with the conditions which were prerequisites to h......
-
The Conflicted Attorney
...diminish public respect and confidence in the legal profession. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. People v. Belfor,___Colo.___, 591 P.2d 585 (1979). 2. See, Watson v. District Court,___Colo.___, 604 P.2d 1165 (1980); See also, Sands, "Prior Representation: The Specter of Disqualific......
-
Pretrial Ethics: a Day in the Life of an Ethical Lawyer
...scientific or professional examinations and state the result thereof shall receive additional compensation). 11. See People v. Belfor, 591 P.2d 585 (Colo. (suspending an attorney for one year for paying a judgment that had been entered against a witness in a separate civil suit, as either a......
-
A Practical Approach to Conflicts of Interest
...must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction he may bring upon others. Trial of Queen Caroline 8 (1821). 6. People v. Belfor, 591 P.2d 585, 587 (Colo. 7. Watson v. District Court, 604 P.2d 1165, 1166 (Colo. 1980). 8. Confidentiality has been recognized as "the cornerstone of the......