People v. Romero

Decision Date23 November 2021
Docket NumberCase Number: 20PDJ067
Citation503 P.3d 951
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant, v. Douglas Leo ROMERO, #35464, Respondent.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

503 P.3d 951

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Complainant,
v.
Douglas Leo ROMERO, #35464, Respondent.

Case Number: 20PDJ067

Office of Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado.

November 23, 2021
March 3, 2022


503 P.3d 955

AMENDED OPINION AND DECISION IMPOSING SANCTIONS UNDER C.R.C.P. 251.19(b)1

Douglas Leo Romero ("Respondent") technically converted his client's funds when he failed to maintain an adequate recordkeeping system for his trust accounts. As a result, the funds in his trust accounts dipped well below the amount he should have been holding for his client. Given Respondent's extensive prior discipline, this misconduct warrants a two-year suspension, to run concurrently with a three-year suspension he is currently serving in another disciplinary case. As part of any petition for reinstatement, Respondent will be required to achieve a passing score on the multistate professional responsibility exam.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 29, 2020, Justin P. Moore of the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ("the People") filed a complaint against Respondent with Presiding Disciplinary Judge William R. Lucero ("the PDJ"), alleging violations of Colo. RPC 1.15A(c) (Claim I), Colo. RPC 1.15D (Claim II), and Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (Claim III). Respondent answered the complaint on November 24, 2020, and the PDJ set a three-day hearing for June 2021, which was later continued at the People's request for October 6-8, 2021.

On April 21, 2021, the People filed an amended partial summary judgment motion on Claims I and II of the complaint. After a full suite of briefing, the PDJ granted the motion for partial summary judgment and entered judgment on both claims. On September 10, 2021, the People moved without opposition to dismiss Claim III and to convert the hearing in this case to a one-day hearing on the sanctions. The PDJ granted that motion on September 13, 2021, and set the one-day hearing for October 6, 2021.

On October 6, 2021, a Hearing Board comprising the PDJ and lawyers Lucy Hojo Denson and David R. Struthers held a remote hearing on the sanctions under C.R.C.P. 251.18 via the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Moore represented the People, and Respondent appeared with his counsel, Gerald D. Pratt. The Hearing Board heard the testimony of Mayra Dubon, who testified with the assistance of a Spanish-language interpreter; Christina Cullers; James Sudler; Marisela Mendoza; and Respondent. The Hearing Board also considered stipulated exhibits S1-S11.

II. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND RULE VIOLATIONS

Respondent was admitted to practice law in Colorado on May 24, 2004, under attorney registration number 35464.2 He is thus subject to the jurisdiction of the Colorado Supreme Court and the Hearing Board in this disciplinary proceeding.

Facts Established on Summary Judgment

Between 2018 and August 2019, Respondent practiced law through his law firm, Douglas L. Romero Attorney at Law, LLC, d/b/a Colorado Christian Defense Counsel ("CCDC"). CCDC operated two trust accounts through First Bank, both under the account name Douglas L. Romero Attorney at Law, LLC.3 CCDC maintained no other trust accounts between August 2018 and December 2019. The last four digits of one account were 7150 ("COLTAF 7150") and the last four digits of the second account were 7169 ("COLTAF 7169").4 Between 2018 and 2019, the funds in these two trust accounts were held for clients or third parties.

In February 2018, Mayra Dubon met with Respondent, seeking his assistance with certain

503 P.3d 956

legal matters.5 Dubon's sister, Karla, had passed away, and Dubon had been designated as the legal guardian for Karla's two minor children, whom Dubon brought to Colorado.6 In 2018, Dubon and Respondent entered into an agreement providing that Respondent would assist her to seek appointment as conservator for the children and obtain benefits owed to them from life insurance policies and from Karla's employer, Key West Boats. Karla had two life insurance policies, including one from Guardian Life Insurance. She also had participated in an employee stock option program through Key West Boats. Karla's children were designated as beneficiaries on the life insurance policies and the employee stock plan.7

During the representation, Respondent secured funds for the benefit of the Dubon children. In August 2018, Respondent received from Guardian Life Insurance two checks for $6,666.67 each and two checks for $3,807.99 each. These four checks totaling $20,949.32 were deposited into COLTAF 7169.8 In August 2019, Respondent received a check from Key West Boats in the amount of $3,387.20. This check was deposited into COLTAF 7150.9

On July 17, 2019, Respondent filed a "Petition to Settle the Estate, Request to Deposit Monies with Court Registry, Request to Approve Counsels’ [sic] Fee's [sic] and Costs and Motion to Withdraw," in which he stated, "The amounts which remain for the estate are in the COLTAF Account of Counsel."10 Respondent also asked the court to direct how the funds in the estate should be distributed. He attached a document to the petition titled "Financial Statement of Dubon Estate."11 The financial statement listed the following:

• Settlement for Guardian Insurance = two checks received for $6,666.67 and two checks for $3,807.99.

• Settlement for Guardian Stock (ESOP) = $3,387.20.

• Attorney fees and costs = $6,156.33 ($6,084.13 in attorney's fees with additional related costs of $72.20).

• Amounts paid to the Myra Dubon [sic] Expenses of the Estate/Burial and Installment of Key West ESOP = $7,540.40.

• Total Remaining to be paid by the Estate held in Trust = $16,796.12.

• Financial Amounts Yet to be Recovered by the Estate = $63,548.82.12

As of July 17, 2019, the amount to be held in trust for the benefit of the Dubon children should have been $16,078.39.13 Likewise, this same amount should have remained in trust between July and December 2019. No documents show any transfer of funds related to the Dubon matter between COLTAF 7169 and COLTAF 7150.

According to First Bank statements, between July and December 2019 the daily balance of COLTAF 7169 was as follows:

503 P.3d 957
Date Balance
7/12/2019 $37,332.27
7/15/2019 $6,699.77
7/16/2019 $10,199.77
7/18/2019 $10,344.96
7/19/2019 $8,844.96
7/22/2019 $10,364.96
7/24/2019 $8,837.17
7/25/2019 $6,837.17
7/26/2019 $4,834.67
7/31/2019 $9,822.17
8/1/2019 $9,822.17
8/2/2019 $10,620.17
8/5/2019 $7,480.17
8/6/2019 $7,729.54
8/8/2019 $7,978.91
8/9/2019 $4,478.91
8/12/2019 $5,675.16
8/16/2019 $6,672.66
8/19/2019 $8,867.16
8/26/2019 $9,864.66
8/27/2019 $9,064.66
8/28/2019 $5,264.66
8/30/2019 $5,264.66
9/3/2019 $4,939.66
9/9/2019 $5,939.66
9/10/2019 $5,739.66
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 books & journal articles
  • Imposing Lawyer Sanctions in a Post-January 6 World
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 36-2, April 2023
    • 1 Abril 2023
    ...In re Peasley, 90 P.3d 764, 769 (Ariz. 2004) (stating that the court looks to the Standards for guidance); Colorado, People v. Romero, 503 P.3d 951, 962 (Colo. O.P. D.J. 2021) (“The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (‘ABA Standards’) and Colorado Supreme Court......

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