People v. Efe
| Decision Date | 01 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | consolidated with 19PDJ002,Case Number: 18PDJ041 |
| Citation | 475 P.3d 620 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant v. Anselm Andrew EFE, #38357, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Anselm Andrew Efe ("Respondent") committed misconduct in two separate client matters. In one matter, he placed a client's retainer directly into his operating account without earning the funds, neglected to notify the client of the basis of his fee in writing, and knowingly failed to return unearned funds to the client for six months. In the other matter, Respondent filed frivolous and groundless motions and caused unnecessary delays that slowed the progress of the case. As a result, Respondent personally was sanctioned $33,000.00 to cover the opposing party's attorney's fees. Respondent failed to satisfy that award for seventeen months, refusing to pay until he was held in contempt, arrested, and jailed. Respondent's misconduct warrants a suspension of one year and one day.
On July 3, 2018, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People") filed with Presiding Disciplinary Judge William R. Lucero ("the PDJ") a four-claim complaint in case number 18PDJ041, alleging that Respondent had violated Colo. RPC 1.5(b), Colo. RPC 1.8(f)(1), Colo. RPC 1.15(A)(a), and Colo. RPC 1.16(d). Respondent did not timely submit an answer, and the People moved for default on August 7, 2018. Two weeks later, before the PDJ entered default, Respondent sought permission to file an answer; the PDJ allowed him to answer and denied the People's default motion. The matter was then set for a two-day hearing in early March 2019. In early February 2019, at Respondent's unopposed request, the PDJ continued the hearing. The hearing was rescheduled for late July 2019.
The People filed a three-claim complaint in case number 19PDJ002 on January 8, 2019, alleging that Respondent had violated Colo. RPC 3.1, Colo. RPC 3.4(c), and Colo. RPC 8.4(d). The PDJ granted Respondent an extension of time to file an answer, which Respondent submitted on February 22, 2019. A hearing in the case was set for September 2019.
The People moved in May 2019 to consolidate case numbers 18PDJ041 and 19PDJ002, to vacate the July 2019 hearing, and to hold a hearing in the consolidated cases during the September 2019 hearing setting. That hearing was in turn continued to January 2020, after Respondent sought a continuance to mourn the sudden death of his younger brother.
In September 2019, on the People's unopposed motion, the PDJ struck paragraphs 10 and 12 of the complaint in case number 18PDJ041 and dismissed the associated claim premised on Colo. RPC 1.8(f)(1).1 Shortly before the hearing the PDJ granted the People's motion in limine to preclude certain witnesses’ testimony; the PDJ reasoned that those witnesses, whom Respondent had failed to timely disclose, could not offer any testimony relevant to the issues in the case. The PDJ denied the People's motion in limine to preclude Respondent from introducing late-disclosed non-stipulated exhibits. But the PDJ ordered Respondent to promptly organize and clearly identify the previously disclosed documents that he planned to use as exhibits.
A hearing on the consolidated cases was held on January 27 through 29, 2020. The PDJ presided over the hearing; he was joined on the Hearing Board by citizen member Kerry M. Gabrielson and lawyer Terry Rogers. Erin R. Kristofco and Michele L. Melnick represented the People, and Respondent appeared pro se . The PDJ admitted and the Hearing Board considered stipulated exhibits S1-S71, the People's exhibits 1-3, and Respondent's exhibits A, C, H, R, CC, LL, TT, UU, and VV. The Hearing Board heard testimony from Janet Layne, Patricia Schapiro,2 Judge Lael Montgomery, Jeffrey M. Villanueva, Magistrate Judith Goeke, and Respondent. On the morning of the final day of the hearing Respondent requested a sequestration order, which the PDJ entered.
Respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado on December 11, 2006, under attorney registration number 38357. He is thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Hearing Board in this disciplinary proceeding.4
Respondent grew up and attended law school in Nigeria. He was admitted to the bar and practiced law there for many years. He then moved to the United States to attend the University of Iowa, eventually earning an LL.M. in international law. Thereafter, he taught international law for five years while carrying on a limited law practice. After relocating to Colorado, he passed the Colorado bar examination in 2006 and has since maintained a varied solo law practice in criminal, personal injury, appellate, and domestic relations law.
In April 2016, Pastor Aniefiok Udo, an Oklahoma resident, retained Respondent to investigate the whereabouts of Udo's son, who was being held in a Colorado jail. Udo asked Respondent to investigate where his son was being detained and which Colorado jurisdictions had pending criminal charges against his son. Respondent did not provide Udo, a new client, with a written statement containing the basis or rate of his fee.5
On April 29, 2016, Respondent accepted a $2,000.00 retainer via wire transfer from Udo.6 The wire transfer was deposited directly into Respondent's operating account.7 Respondent concedes that he never transferred any of this money into his trust account.8 Respondent's bank statements show that by May 2, 2016, he had spent all but $460.52 of Udo's funds.9 On May 20, 2016, Respondent texted Udo, "I sent you the new charges and the ‘letter of representation.’ "10 Udo did not respond.
Instead, on June 1, 2016, Udo terminated his attorney-client relationship with Respondent by text, requesting a full refund.11 Respondent replied the next day, promising to calculate which portion of the retainer had been earned and to refund the remainder.12 Udo repeatedly requested a refund during summer 2016,13 but Respondent never issued an accounting or a refund.
Udo eventually filed a request for investigation with the People. On December 5, 2016, the People sent Respondent a letter requesting information about Udo's representation of Udo.14 Two days later, on December 7, 2016, Respondent sent Udo an invoice, which showed that he had earned $980.00 and thus owed Udo $1,020.00 in unearned funds.15 Respondent issued the refund the same day, more than six months after Udo terminated the representation, requested an accounting, and asked for the return of his retainer. At the disciplinary hearing Respondent did not explain why he delayed for so long in returning Udo's money. But he did concede that "it took too long" for him to make the refund, acknowledging, "that was wrong of me."
The People allege that Respondent violated three rules while representing Udo: Colo. RPC 1.5(b), which provides that when a lawyer has not regularly represented a client, the lawyer must communicate to the client in writing the basis or rate of the lawyer's fees within a reasonable time after beginning the representation; Colo. RPC 1.15A(a), which requires a lawyer to hold the property of a represented client separate from the lawyer's own property; and Colo. RPC 1.16(d), which provides that on termination of the representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests, including refunding any advance payment of fees that have not been earned.
Because Respondent admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he violated Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) and Colo. RPC 1.16(d) —and we find that the evidence adduced bears out those violations—we address in substance only the remaining contested claim, alleging a violation of Colo. RPC 1.5(b). The People maintain that Respondent contravened Colo. RPC 1.5(b) because even though he had not before represented Udo, he failed to provide Udo any writing memorializing the basis or rate of his fee. Respondent counters that he sent a fee agreement to Udo, citing his text on May 20, 2016,16 as proof that he forwarded to Udo a writing setting forth the rate of his fee.
We find that the People have proved this claim by clear and convincing evidence. We have no confidence that Respondent ever sent any writing to Udo; as his other text exchanges with Udo illustrate, Respondent's promises often went unfulfilled. But even if Respondent had sent to Udo his fee agreement with Udo's son,17 we cannot find that the writing satisfies his obligations under Colo. RPC 1.5(b). That agreement is undated, unsigned, addressed to Udo's son, and purports to establish terms governing Respondent's representation of Udo's son in three criminal cases—tasks that Udo did not retain him to complete. We cannot agree that providing to a new client a fee agreement with the client's family member (which itself governs an engagement quite unlike the client's requested task) adequately notifies the client of the fees the lawyer will charge. We conclude that Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.5(b).
Patricia ("Wife") and Marc ("Husband") Schapiro were married in September 1980 and had two sons, both now adults. On January 5, 2016, Wife petitioned in Jefferson County court for legal separation from Husband through her counsel Lily Appelman and William Hunnicutt.18 Through his then-counsel William King, Husband responded, seeking a dissolution of marriage decree.19 Because the couple had no minor children, the dissolution proceeding centered entirely on allocation of the marital assets, including four Colorado properties, retirement assets, and Husband's ownership share in entities related to a business that he co-owned.20
Early in the divorce proceeding, the parties agreed to the appointment of retired Judge Lael Montgomery of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial