People v. Fry

Decision Date21 September 2021
Docket NumberCase Number: 21PDJ019
Citation501 P.3d 846
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Christopher James FRY, #47482, Respondent
CourtColorado Supreme Court
OPINION AND DECISION IMPOSING SANCTIONS UNDER C.R.C.P. 251.19(c)

WILLIAM R. LUCERO, PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE

Christopher James Fry ("Respondent") did not adequately communicate with his client or exercise diligence in representing him. He charged the client excessive fees for work that remained uncompleted or that conferred little benefit. When his client terminated the representation, Respondent did not cooperate with substitute counsel to act in his client's interests, nor did he refund to the client unearned funds. Instead, he knowingly filed frivolous pleadings with the court falsely asserting that his client had failed to pay legal fees. Respondent's varied misconduct left his client worse off in all respects and warrants an eighteen-month suspension.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 23, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court immediately suspended Respondent under C.R.C.P. 251.8.6 for his failure to cooperate in his disciplinary investigation.

On April 12, 2021, Jane B. Cox of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People") filed a complaint with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("the Court"). The same day, the People sent a copy of the complaint to Respondent via certified and regular mail at his registered home address of 801 South Cherry Street, Apartment 264, Denver, Colorado 80246.1 When the due date for Respondent's answer had passed, the People sent him a letter on May 6, 2021, reminding him to answer.

On May 20, 2021, the People moved for entry of default. The Court granted the People's default motion on June 14, 2021. Upon the entry of default, the Court deemed all facts set forth in the complaint admitted and all rule violations established by clear and convincing evidence.2

On August 27, 2021 the Court held a sanctions hearing under C.R.C.P. 251.15(b) via the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Cox represented the People; Respondent did not appear. During the hearing, the Court admitted the People's exhibits 1-22 into evidence and heard testimony from Christopher Simpson and lawyer Mark Chapleau.3

II. ESTABLISHED FACTS AND RULE VIOLATIONS

Respondent took the oath of admission and was admitted to practice law in Colorado on November 3, 2014, under attorney registration number 47482. He is thus subject to the Court's jurisdiction in this disciplinary proceeding.4

On March 10, 2020, Christopher Simpson retained Respondent and Respondent's former law firm, Modern Family Law, to represent him in a post-decree modification of child support action in Jefferson County District Court. Simpson's ex-wife ("Wife") had filed a motion to modify child support on March 9, 2020, which was served on Simpson the same day. Respondent entered his appearance in the case on March 13, 2020.

Under the fee agreement, Simpson was to be charged twice monthly for the services rendered during the representation. Any remaining retainer balance, after payment of final fees and costs, would be refunded to Simpson. On March 10, 2020, Simpson gave Modern Family Law $2,850.00 as a retainer, which he understood would cover ten hours of legal services at Respondent's rate under the terms of the fee agreement. On March 19, 2020, Modern Family Law charged Simpson's credit card $344.50. Simpson contacted Modern Family Law to question why he was being charged again so soon after paying a retainer to the firm. Someone at the firm explained to Simpson that the advance retainer was held in trust as a security deposit, and that the retainer would be refunded to Simpson at the conclusion of the representation. Modern Family Law then charged Simpson's credit card $878.50 on April 6, 2020.

The twenty-one-day deadline to respond to Wife's motion to modify child support elapsed around March 30, 2020. Respondent failed to respond to Wife's motion by the deadline. The court issued a case management order on April 13, 2020, which noted that Simpson had not filed a response but that more information was necessary to rule on Wife's pleading. Respondent submitted Simpson's response to the motion to modify child support on April 22, 2020, more than three weeks late.

The parties’ mandatory financial disclosures were due to be filed and exchanged under C.R.C.P. 16.2(e)(2) around April 20, 2020. But Respondent failed to file Simpson's sworn financial statement or his certificate of compliance with mandatory financial disclosures with the court at any point during the representation. Modern Family Law did, however, charge Simpson's credit card $1,309.00 on April 21, 2020.

The court's case management order reinforced the deadline for exchange of financial disclosures; it also instructed the parties to provide C.R.C.P. 16.2(e) disclosures to the other party at least 7 days before mediation and to bring the disclosures to the mediation session. Simpson asked Respondent to send him the template sworn financial statement form on several occasions in April 2020. Each time Respondent made an excuse for why he had forgotten to do so previously. At 10:42 p.m. on April 30, 2020, Respondent's paralegal sent Simpson a link to complete his sworn financial statement form in a specific software program. She informed Simpson that his sworn financial statement was already past due and there could be legal consequences for his lack of compliance.

In haste, Simpson completed the data entry in the form to the best of his ability. By the next day—which he believed to be the filing deadline—Simpson submitted two revisions to his sworn financial statement to be included in the filing. The information Simpson entered into the software program was immediately available for Respondent to generate Simpson's sworn financial statement. Simpson provided Respondent all of the financial disclosure documents that he understood were required, and Respondent did not request any additional financial documents from Simpson.

The parties attended mediation on May 11, 2020. Respondent failed to prepare for mediation. As one example, Respondent did not have a copy of the sworn financial statement that Simpson completed, and Simpson had to email it to Respondent for reference.

Simpson learned during the mediation session that Respondent had failed to file his sworn financial statement with the court and had also failed to provide any of Simpson's mandatory financial disclosure documents to Wife's counsel as required. The only financial document provided to Wife was Simpson's September 2019 paystub, which Simpson himself provided in February 2020. The parties failed to resolve the disputed issues during mediation.

On May 15, 2020, Wife, through her counsel, moved for sanctions under C.R.C.P. 16.2(j). The motion for sanctions sought $1,375.00 in attorney's fees for the failed mediation and Wife's counsel's time in drafting the motion for sanctions. The motion further requested that Simpson be prohibited from providing any additional late financial disclosures and that the court calculate the new child support obligation based on Wife's documentation and Simpson's September 2019 paystub.

By Wife's calculation, based upon the documentation available, Simpson's child support would increase from $798.00 per month to $1,338.00 per month. Wife's counsel attached as exhibits to the motion for sanctions all of the email communications with Respondent, evidencing counsel's fruitless efforts to obtain Simpson's financial disclosures. The email exhibits show that in response to Wife's counsel's inquiry about the delinquent disclosures, Respondent stated in an email on Friday, May 1, 2020: "We've been collecting that data over the last 2-3 days, I'll have to check with my paralegal how long it will take to complete the Sworn Financial Statement, but I would anticipate that it will be completed no later than Monday."5 But Respondent failed to provide the sworn financial statement or disclosure documents on that day. Wife's counsel followed up two more times before the scheduled mediation, with no response from Respondent at all.

Shortly after the failed mediation session, Simpson sought new counsel and terminated Respondent's representation on May 21, 2020. Simpson intended to dispute Respondent's billing, and he was concerned that after the transition to new counsel Modern Family Law would continue to charge his credit card for charges that he would also dispute. Accordingly, Simpson attempted to work with his bank to stop payment on the authorization to Modern Family Law.

Simpson's efforts were not successful, and on May 21, 2020—the day that Respondent was substituted off of the case—Modern Family Law billed his credit card two more times, once for $381.50 and once for $2,850.00. The charge for $2,850.00 was an unauthorized replenishment of Simpson's initial retainer. Modern Family Law then charged Simpson's credit card again on June 4, 2020, for $288.50.

After Simpson terminated Respondent's representation, Simpson's subsequent counsel, Mark Chapleau, sought Respondent's cooperation to produce email correspondence or other communications showing what financial disclosures, if any, had been provided to Wife, to defend Simpson against the pending motion for sanctions. The email correspondence between Respondent and Chapleau shows that Respondent was slow to respond or completely nonresponsive to Chapleau's time-sensitive requests.

On June 22, 2020, Respondent filed a notice of attorney's lien, a motion to reduce the lien to judgment, and an affidavit of attorney's fees and costs, which attached Simpson's last two unredacted billing statements. Those filings represented that Simpson "incurred and failed to pay a total of $3,138.50 from April 16, 2020, through May 31, 2020."6 Respondent also submitted with the filings a billing statement dated May 31, 2020. The statement indicated that Simpson owed the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 4, 2023
    ...OK 112, ¶31, 341 P.3d 673, 686 (No one may contract requiring conduct that is against public policy.). [157] See, e.g., People v. Fry, 501 P.3d 846 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2021) (unreasonable fee provision of Colorado's rules professional conduct (Colo. RPC 1.5) was violated by a lawyer's fee for p......
  • Medina v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 11, 2023
    ...not err by ruling that Medina waived a factual-basis finding and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently pleaded guilty. Id. at ¶ 65, 501 P.3d at 846. ¶14 Medina petitioned for certiorari review, and we granted his petition.[4] II. Standard of Review ¶15 "The constitutional validity of a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT