People v. Loseke, 84SA354
| Decision Date | 29 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84SA354,84SA354 |
| Citation | 698 P.2d 809 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Gary L. LOSEKE, Attorney-Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Prosecutor, Denver, for complainant.
John B. Moorhead, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, for attorney-respondent.
On May 19, 1983, the respondent, Gary L. Loseke, was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him due to his conviction of a serious crime as defined in C.R.C.P. 241.16(e). We now disbar the respondent and order that he pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
I.
On November 3, 1983, a formal complaint was filed against the respondent with the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee (Committee). It alleged that the respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Colorado in 1972 and was the senior trust officer of The Farmers State Bank of Fort Morgan (Bank) in March 1980. From the latter date until December 1981, respondent traded in puts and calls (options to sell or buy stock) for shares of common stock. In order to conduct the trading he forged bank guaranty letters addressed to Boettcher & Company to secure the puts and calls which he ordered. It also alleged that on April 5, 1983, respondent pled guilty to the felony of knowingly, and with intent to defraud, making, drawing, and issuing certain obligations of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 (1982), in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint stated that the respondent's conduct violated C.R.C.P. 241.6(1) (), C.R.C.P. 241.6(2) (), C.R.C.P. 241.6(3) (), C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) (), and C.R.C.P. 241.16 ().
The respondent's answer admitted the material allegations of the complaint and, by way of mitigation, asserted that at no time were bank customer or trust funds at risk, and full restitution had been made to the Bank.
Prior to proceedings before the Hearing Board of the Grievance Committee, the respondent, through counsel, entered into a Stipulation of Facts with the Disciplinary Prosecutor. The stipulation stated in part that respondent established an account, known as Farb, No. 2, which was used for personal trading of put and call options; that respondent, although he used only his own funds for trading, executed, purportedly on behalf of the Bank, documents known as "Guaranty Letters" and delivered them without authorization to Boettcher & Company in connection with his trading activities in order to secure the puts and calls which he ordered. The stipulation also stated that when the Bank discovered respondent's activities a number of options were outstanding which the bank repurchased or covered by paying $325,879.78. After his plea of guilty, respondent was sentenced to three years in a federal prison, subsequently reduced to eighteen months.
The Hearing Board heard testimony from respondent about his trading activities and mitigating circumstances. After concluding that the respondent had violated C.R.C.P. 241.6(1), (2), (3), (5), and C.R.C.P. 241.16, DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty), DR 1-102(A)(6) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...a significant benefit or advantage for himself or another...."). See also People v. Fitzke, 716 P.2d 1065 (Colo.1986); People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809 (Colo.1985). Accordingly, it is ordered that respondent be disbarred and his name be stricken from the roll of lawyers authorized to practice......
-
People v. Wolfe, 87SA160
...Foster, 733 P.2d 687 (Colo.1987); People v. Quick, 716 P.2d 1082 (Colo.1986); People v. Fitzke, 716 P.2d 1065 (Colo.1986); People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809 (Colo.1985); People v. Buckles, 673 P.2d 1008 (Colo.1984). She also points to various ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) ......
-
People v. Preblud, 88SA137
...the future. Nevertheless, we conclude that great weight must be given to the seriousness of the misconduct itself. See People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809, 810 (Colo.1985) (considering nature of misconduct in determining appropriate The scheme that the respondent's employers devised resulted in ......
-
People v. Young, 86SA397
...the highest standards of justice, ethics, and morality." People v. Fitzke, 716 P.2d 1065, 1068-69 (Colo.1986) (quoting People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809, 810 (Colo.1985)). The appropriate measure of discipline for misconduct of this character, consistent with the duty of this court to protect ......
-
Opinions
...Standards 5.11(b). The presumptive sanction for knowing misappropriation of the property of another is disbarment. In People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809, 810 (Colo. 1985) the was disbarred for forging bank guaranty letters and knowingly, with intent to defraud, making, drawing, and issuing cert......