334 P.3d 241
Colo.2014Background
- Respondent admitted to practicing law in Colorado and represented 420 Wellness in a purchase-sale transaction with Waldron and AgraTek.
- Emails and a draft purchase-sale agreement were exchanged in 2010-2011; material content differed between Respondent's copies and Waldron's copies.
- Green-VisionTek, LLC v. 420 Wellness laid a civil suit alleging various breaches; Lonnquist filed an RFI with the People in 2011.
- The People moved for summary judgment on three disciplinary counts; the PDJ granted, converting the disciplinary hearing into a sanctions proceeding.
- Forensic analysis by Kelso concluded Respondent fabricated emails and attachments; Respondent testified to their authenticity under oath.
- Hearing Board found multiple Rule violations (RPC 3.8(a)(8), 8.1(a), 8.4(c)); concluded disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Respondent knowingly offer false evidence? | People prove fabrication and false testimony. | Respondent would contest materiality or state of mind. | Yes; violated RPC 3.8(a)(8). |
| Did Respondent knowingly make false statements in a disciplinary matter? | Fabricated documents and false statements were provided to the People. | Disputes over copies and interpretations; no knowing falsehood established. | Yes; violated RPC 8.1(a). |
| Did Respondent engage in dishonest conduct by falsifying documents? | Falsified documents and testified to their authenticity. | Disputes about the integrity of documents not proven as intentional dishonesty. | Yes; violated RPC 8.4(c). |
| What sanction follows from the proven misconduct? | Disbarment is presumptively appropriate for intentional dishonesty. | Challenge to severity or alternative sanctions. | Disbarment upheld as the appropriate sanction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rolfe, 962 P.2d 981 (Colo. 1998) (emphasizes seriousness of ethical violations reflecting fitness to practice)
- In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43 (Colo. 2003) (guides discretion in imposing sanctions)
- In re Fischer, 89 P.3d 817 (Colo. 2004) (mitigation and sanction considerations in disciplinary matters)
- In re Attorney F., 285 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2012) (limits weight of inexperience in face of dishonesty)
- Whitt, 149 Wash.2d 707 (Wash. 2003) (false representations by an attorney discipline respondent warrants strong sanction)
- In re Cleaver-Bascombe, 986 A.2d 1191 (D.C. 2010) (dishonesty in professional misconduct warrants disbarment and disgrace)