People v. Jamrozek, 96SA172
| Decision Date | 29 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96SA172,96SA172 |
| Citation | 921 P.2d 725 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Thomas T. JAMROZEK, Attorney-Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Counsel, Kenneth B. Pennywell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Denver, for Complainant.
No Appearance by or on behalf of Attorney-Respondent.
The respondent in this lawyer discipline proceeding was disbarred on April 8, 1996. People v. Jamrozek, 914 P.2d 350 (Colo.1996). Following the respondent's disbarment, this separate disciplinary proceeding was submitted to the court. A hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and recommendation of the hearing board that the respondent be disbarred, pay restitution prior to any application for readmission, and be assessed the costs of the proceeding. The respondent defaulted before the grievance committee and has not appeared in this court. We approve the findings of the panel and board, and order that the respondent pay restitution prior to any application for readmission as set forth in the board's report, and pay the costs of the proceeding. We do not impose additional discipline since the respondent has already been disbarred for prior misconduct, although we agree that the respondent's violations of professional standards in this case independently support the panel's recommendation of disbarment.
The respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado in 1986. Even though now disbarred, he remains subject to the jurisdiction of this court and its grievance committee for his failure to comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct while he practiced law. People v. Koransky, 830 P.2d 490, 491 (Colo.1992); C.R.C.P. 241.1(b). Two formal complaints filed by the assistant disciplinary counsel were consolidated. The respondent did not appear and did not answer the complaints, so an order of default was entered and the allegations of fact in the complaints were deemed admitted. People v. Barr, 855 P.2d 1386, 1386 (Colo.1993); C.R.C.P. 241.13(b). Based on the respondent's default, and evidence tendered by the assistant disciplinary counsel, the hearing board found that the following was established by clear and convincing evidence.
The respondent represented Patricia Valentine Payne in a claim involving the intrauterine device (IUD), the Dalkon Shield. The respondent was at least negligent in failing to submit documentation to the Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust that his client had suffered an imbedded IUD. The respondent received a settlement check in May 1993, to settle Payne's class action claim. Before he would turn over his client's funds, however, the respondent demanded an additional $6,500 in fees over and above what he was entitled to under the applicable contingent fee agreement. Frightened and intimidated, Payne signed a release on May 6, 1993, giving the respondent $6,500 more in attorney fees than he was due under their agreement.
Payne filed a malpractice action against the respondent, and on October 4, 1994, the court entered summary judgment against the respondent because of his failure to submit Payne's imbedded IUD claim to the trust fund. The court awarded Payne $30,000 in damages for the respondent's negligence. Another judgment was entered against the respondent for breaching his attorney fee agreement with his client, after the court concluded that Payne signed the release agreement under duress because of the respondent's coercion and threats.
The damages the respondent caused Payne are: (1) $30,000 plus interest for neglect, and (2) $6,500 plus interest for charging and collecting an excessive fee. The respondent has not satisfied either of the judgments against him.
The board found that the respondent's conduct, which occurred before and after January 1, 1993, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and R.P.C. 1.3 (); R.P.C. 1.5(a) (); R.P.C. 1.15(b) (); R.P.C. 8.4(c) (); and R.P.C. 8.4(g) ().
On August 18, 1993, Bobby Rath retained the respondent to represent him in a criminal case in which he had been charged with twelve counts of sexual contact with two girls. Rath paid the respondent a $2,500 advance fee and he agreed to also pay a $10,000 flat fee for a disposition short of trial, and another $10,000 if the case went to trial.
Prior to the preliminary hearing, the respondent told Rath and his wife, Sherri L. Rath, that the district attorney had agreed to stipulate to no jail time if Rath pleaded guilty to a class 4 felony. According to the Raths, however, the respondent advised them that the prosecution had no case and that was why the offer was made. He further advised them that there would be no trial and that there was no possibility that Rath would go to jail. Based on these assurances, the Raths declined to accept the prosecution's offer.
Although the respondent initially hired an investigator for the case, the investigator quit because the respondent failed to cooperate or communicate with her. Respondent did not hire a replacement investigator.
Trial was originally set for March 1994, but the respondent obtained a continuance until August 1994. From March to August, however, the Raths were unable to contact the respondent because his phone was disconnected or he could not be located at his office. The respondent did go to the Raths' home in July 1994, and once again advised them to reject the plea offer which he said was still available, and they did.
Prior to trial, the respondent did not prepare the witnesses to testify and he did not interview potential witnesses. At the trial in August, Rath was found guilty on six of eight counts, including the most serious pattern of conduct charges, and he was sentenced to serve nineteen years in the Department of Corrections. 1
After Rath was sentenced and incarcerated, the respondent or his paralegal made numerous attempts between September 1994 and July 1995, in person and by telephone, at Ms. Rath's work and home, to collect the balance of the respondent's fee. When the respondent came to her house, Ms. Rath indicates that his demeanor was threatening and that she was frightened. During that period, more than $2,000 in attorney fees was collected, resulting in a total amount paid of $19,400.
The foregoing conduct violated R.P.C. 1.4(b) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton
...in order to determine the appropriate discipline." In re Application of Kraemer, 411 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1987); see also People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725 (Colo.1996) (affirming recommendation for disbarment but not imposing additional discipline as respondent already disbarred). We therefore......
-
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton
...the need for prompt response to complaints of professional misconduct." (Citation omitted.) Id., at 1020-21; see also People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 725-26 (Colo.1996) ("[e]ven though [the respondent is] now disbarred, he remains subject to the jurisdiction of this court and its grievanc......
-
Watson v. Cal–three Llc
...to practice law was suspended in 1994 and never reinstated, he remained subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 726 (Colo.1996). In reporting what she believed to be unprofessional conduct by Watson, the judge acted in accordance with her duties. More......
-
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton, (SC 17510) (Conn. 4/10/2007)
...to the need for prompt response to complaints of professional misconduct." (Citation omitted.) Id., 1020-21; see also People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 725-26 (Colo. 1996) ("[e]ven though [the respondent is] now disbarred, he remains subject to the jurisdiction of this court and its grievan......
-
Disciplinary Opinion
...Rules of Professional Conduct. See People v. Fager, 938 P.2d 138, 141-42 (Colo. 1997); Johnson, 946 P.2d at 473; People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 728 (Colo. 1996). ...
-
Disciplinary Opinion: People v. Gregson
...before January 1, 2008, the effective date of the Rule's amendment. 26. See People's exhibit 1, ¶ 8. 27. See, e.g., People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 726 (Colo. 1996) (concluding attorney charged excessive fee under a contingent fee contractby arbitrarily demanding additional $6,500 fee bef......
-
Opinions
...of any evidence justifying such a demand, Clough's demanded fee was unreasonable in violation of Colo. RPC 1.5(a). See People v. Jamrozek, 921 P.2d 725, 727 1996)(attorney previously disbarred was found to have charged an excessive fee under a contingent fee contract by arbitrarily demandin......