People v. Meyer, 95SA349
| Decision Date | 11 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95SA349,95SA349 |
| Citation | 908 P.2d 123 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Stephany A. MEYER, Attorney-Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Counsel, James C. Coyle, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Denver, for Complainant.
Stephany A. Meyer, Pro Se.
This lawyer discipline proceeding is brought pursuant to C.R.C.P. 241.17(d) (). The respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel entered into a stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct. C.R.C.P. 241.18. The conditional admission recommended the imposition of a private or public censure. An inquiry panel of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee approved the stipulation, with the recommendation that the respondent receive a private censure. We accept the stipulation but conclude that a public censure is appropriate.
The respondent was licensed to practice law in Colorado in 1992. The respondent is also licensed to practice law in Wyoming, and the misconduct forming the basis of this reciprocal discipline occurred in Wyoming.
The parties stipulated that on December 7, 1993, the respondent wrote a letter on her Wyoming law firm's letterhead to a woman she knew to be represented by Wyoming counsel. The letter demanded that the woman return certain personal property to the woman's former boyfriend, Hans Brock. The letter stated that a potential civil action (which would occur if the property were not returned) might negatively affect the woman's pending application for admission to the Minnesota bar. The letter was written on behalf of Hans Brock, who was the respondent's fiance.
On June 30, 1995, the respondent received an order of public censure from the Wyoming Supreme Court for violating Wyoming Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 () 1 for the foregoing misconduct.
In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under C.R.C.P. 241.17(d) such as this one, we generally impose the same discipline that was imposed in the other state unless a specified exception applies. People v. Mattox, 862 P.2d 276, 277 (Colo.1993); C.R.C.P. 241.17(d)(1)-(4). 2 There is nothing in the record establishing that any of the exceptions exist, nor do we see any reason to impose different discipline. Accordingly, we accept the conditional admission, and we impose a public censure as did the Wyoming Supreme Court. 3
It is hereby ordered that Stephany A. Meyer be publicly censured. It is further ordered that the respondent pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $49.98 within thirty days after the announcement of this opinion to the Supreme Court Grievance Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 920-S, Dominion Plaza, Denver, Colorado 80202.
1 R.P.C. 4.2 provides:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.
2 C.R.C.P. 241.17(d) provides in relevant part:
At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the hearing panel shall refer the matter to the Supreme Court with the recommendation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...that was imposed in the other jurisdiction in a reciprocal discipline proceeding unless certain exceptions exist. People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo.1995). C.R.C.P. 241.17(d) provides in relevant At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the hearing panel shall refer t......
-
People v. Harper
...Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo.1987). 9.Id. 10.Id. at 713. 11.Id. 12.C.R.C.P. 251.21(a). 13.See also People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo.1995). 14.C.R.C.P. 251.21(d)(1). 15. Reply to Complainant's Resp. to Respondent's M. Summ. J. at 2–3. 16.People v. Smith, 937 P.2......
-
People v. Gargano
...Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo.1987). 8.Id. 9.Id. at 713. 10.Id. 11.C.R.C.P. 251.21(a). 12.See also People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo.1995). 13.C.R.C.P. 251.21(d)(1). 14. These facts are primarily drawn from the People's motion for summary judgment, Respondent's o......
-
People v. Sousa, 97SA158
...we impose the same discipline that was imposed in the other jurisdiction unless one of four exceptions exist. See People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo.1995). C.R.C.P. 241.17(d) provides in relevant At the conclusion of proceedings brought under this Rule, the hearing panel shall refer t......
-
Disciplinary Opinion
...Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo. 1987). [9]Id. [10]Id. at 713. [11]Id. [12]C.R.C.P. 251.21(a). [13]See also People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo. 1995). [14]C.R.C.P. 251.21(d)(1). [15]Reply to Complainant’s Resp. to Respondent’s M. Summ. J. at 2-3. [16]People v. Smith, 937 P.2d ......
-
Disciplinary Opinion
...Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo. 1987). [8] Id. [9] Id. at 713. [10] Id. [11] C.RC.P. 251.21(a). [12] See also People v. Meyer, 908 P.2d 123, 124 (Colo. 1995). [13] C.RC.P. 251.21(d)(1). [14] These facts are primarily drawn from the People's motion for summary judgment, Respondent's......