People v. Roberts

520 P.2d 133, 184 Colo. 358
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedMarch 25, 1974
DocketNo. 26263
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 520 P.2d 133 (People v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Roberts, 520 P.2d 133, 184 Colo. 358 (Colo. 1974).

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This matter arises as a result of a complaint before the Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court. A formal hearing was held before a hearing committee at which the Respondent appeared, represented by counsel. There were 11 counts in the formal complaint presented against the Respondent upon which evidence was taken.

[359]*359The evidence showed a complete failure on the part of the Respondent to carry out his duties with respect to matters entrusted to him by various clients, some being estate matters and some being in connection with lawsuits.

The Committee further found that in these matters he in some instances commingled or failed to account for funds received by him in trust. During the period of time these matters were going on, the Respondent had heavy drinking problems which brought his marriage, his law practice and his financial position to the brink of ruin. The testimony revealed that the Respondent still has mental and emotional problems, but that he is trying to rehabilitate himself and make restitution to those who have suffered a loss by reason of his conduct as a lawyer.

We hold that although the Respondent’s misconduct resulted from his mental and emotional problems caused by heavy drinking, this does not constitute an excuse and that discipline must be meted out which will both punish him and protect the public. Although he is presently on a program of rehabilitation, we feel that the proper punishment in this case should be an indefinite suspension. We therefore indefinitely suspend the Respondent with the proviso that in no event shall the Respondent be permitted to apply for reinstatement for a period of five years from this date, and in the event he should apply he will be required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that his alcoholic and related problems have been effectively controlled for such a period of time as will warrant the conclusion that they are not likely to re-occur.

It is the further judgment of this Court that Respondent be assessed the costs of this proceeding, which are in the amount of $800.55 to be paid to the Clerk of this Court within 5 years.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Harfmann
638 P.2d 745 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1981)
People v. Morgan
574 P.2d 79 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1977)
People v. Moore
561 P.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
520 P.2d 133, 184 Colo. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roberts-colo-1974.