In re Greene
302 P.3d 690
Colo.2013Background
- AR Counsel sought review of a PDJ order granting summary judgment for Greene on claims in a disciplinary complaint.
- The PDJ held the instant claims were barred by claim preclusion due to prior related disciplinary actions.
- The prior consolidated complaint (Dec 2010) and the instant complaint (Sept 2011) overlapped in time but involved different acts and clients.
- The PDJ concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact and treated the two actions as a single transaction.
- The Colorado Supreme Court grants appellate review of certain PDJ/ Hearing Board determinations and remands when appropriate to resolve issues of claim preclusion in attorney discipline.
- The court vacates the PDJ’s summary judgment and remands for proceedings on the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion barred the instant complaint | AR Counsel: prior action created final judgment on related acts | Greene: same or connected transactions warrant merger and bar | PDJ erred; none of the instant claims identical to prior adjudicated claim |
| Whether the two complaints constituted a single transaction or series of connected transactions | AR Counsel: transactions should be treated as a single unit | Greene: interrelatedness insufficient for merger | There was no substantial interrelationship of proof; not the same transaction |
| Whether lack of cooperation or the ability to join all charges affects claim preclusion in attorney regulation | AR Counsel: cooperation issues could bar joinder | Greene: respondent cooperation is required to join connected charges | Not dispositive here; the instant claims were not identical to those adjudicated, so remand is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth., 109 P.3d 604 (Colo. 2005) (merger and bar; transactional view of a claim)
- Waitkus, 517 P.2d 399 (Colo. 1973) (foundation for claim preclusion in Colorado)
- Miranda, 754 P.2d 377 (Colo. 1988) (criminal episode concept used for interrelated proof)
- Jeffrey v. Dist. Court, 626 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1981) (joinder principles in criminal context; analogies for regulation)
- Rogers, 742 P.2d 912 (Colo. 1987) (interrelated proof in multiple offenses)
- In re Fisher, 202 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2009) (quasi-criminal nature of attorney discipline; procedural aspects)
- In re Attorney G, 2013 CO 27, 302 P.3d 248 (Colo. 2013) (limits of appellate review of PDJ orders; reference for rule 251.27)