People v. Underhill
This text of 708 P.2d 790 (People v. Underhill) 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.
Opinion
This is another chapter in the disciplinary proceeding against Burton C. Underhill (respondent). On June 11, 1984, we suspended the respondent for one year and a day. People v. Underhill, 683 P.2d 349 (Colo.1984). Prior to the expiration of the period of suspension, additional complaints were filed against the respondent and we now extend the suspension for an additional year and order that the respondent pay the costs of these proceedings.
The grounds for suspension in the first instance are similar to those that mandate a year’s extension of the original suspension. When these proceedings were initiated the respondent failed to answer or respond in any way, and on the day of the hearing telephoned the disciplinary prosecutor and agreed to participate in the hearing by telephone. During the hearing various exhibits were admitted to establish that the respondent was served with the complaint and notices relating to the disciplinary proceedings. During the telephone conference the respondent admitted receiving the complaint and some of the other notices. In the course of the telephone hearing both the disciplinary prosecutor and the respondent presented statements to the hearing board.
The complaint alleged that the respondent charged a client more than $550 for making a few phone calls relating to a child support dispute. He continued his representation of his client after his initial suspension and totally failed to comply with [791]*791C.R.C.P. 241.21.1 He continued to represent his client as if he had never been suspended and collected fees for his services after he was suspended. However, he refused to answer his client’s telephone calls and the client employed another lawyer who was unable to reach the respondent although many telephone calls were made and none were returned.
The hearing board has found that the respondent continued to practice after he was suspended, failed to notify the court or opposing counsel of his suspension, and collected the balance of an excessive fee after his suspension.
In addition, he refused to cooperate with the Grievance Committee even after he was advised that his failure to answer the complaint or respond could result in disciplinary sanctions. C.R.C.P. 241.6(7).
The respondent has alcohol-related problems that caused the committee to recommend treatment or possible transfer to disability inactive status. The respondent, however, although acknowledging his alcohol addiction, has not followed any of the suggestions.
The conduct of the respondent is contrary to C.R.C.P. 241.6 and 241.21, and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on the ability to practice law); DR 2-106(A) (charge an excessive fee); DR 2-110(B)(2) (continue employment in violation of a disciplinary rule); DR 3-101(B) (practice law in violation of regulations); and DR 9-102(B)(4) (prompt payment of funds due a client).
Accordingly, the respondent is suspended for an additional one year. His initial suspension was for one year and one day and commenced on June 11, 1984. His suspension is extended until June 12, 1986, and he then may be admitted to practice only after establishing that he is rehabilitated, has complied with the order of suspension, and [792]*792has paid the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. The costs are $120.48 and shall be paid to the Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee, 600-17th Street, Suite 500 South, Denver, Colorado 80202, within sixty days after the issuance of this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
708 P.2d 790, 1985 Colo. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-underhill-colo-1985.