309 P.3d 963
Colo.2013Background
- Nicole M. Kolhouse (attorney reg. no. 33291) was administratively suspended by the Colorado Supreme Court on May 13, 2011 for failure to pay registration fees and satisfy CLE requirements.
- Despite the suspension, on January 23, 2012 Kolhouse phoned opposing counsel and purported to represent a claimant in a workers’ compensation matter, providing contact information and requesting documents.
- The opposing lawyer reported the contact, prompting the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (the People) to open an investigation into unauthorized practice of law.
- The People sent multiple written requests and left voicemail messages asking Kolhouse to respond; she left one voicemail promising to fax a reply but provided no written response and otherwise failed to cooperate.
- The People filed a disciplinary complaint; Kolhouse did not answer and a default was entered, deeming the complaint’s facts admitted. A sanctions hearing was held without Kolhouse’s participation.
- The Presiding Disciplinary Judge found violations of Colo. RPC 5.5(a)(1) (unauthorized practice while suspended), 3.4(c) (disobeying tribunal order), and 8.1(b) (failure to respond to investigative requests), and imposed a three‑month suspension requiring a petition for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kolhouse practiced law while administratively suspended | Kolhouse knowingly acted as counsel in a call, so she practiced while suspended | (No appearance; no defense presented) | Court held she knowingly practiced while suspended and violated Colo. RPC 5.5(a)(1) and 3.4(c) |
| Whether Kolhouse failed to respond to disciplinary inquiries | The People showed repeated written and telephone requests that went unanswered | (No appearance; no response to inquiries) | Court held she violated Colo. RPC 8.1(b) by failing to cooperate |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Suspension is presumptive under ABA Standards for knowingly practicing while suspended and failing to cooperate | (No mitigation offered; only mitigating factor was no prior discipline) | Court imposed a three‑month suspension and required petition for reinstatement |
| Effect of default and non‑participation on process | Default admits facts and violations; non‑participation permits stricter post‑suspension requirements | Kolhouse did not participate to rebut | Court applied default, considered aggravating/mitigating factors, and required reinstatement petition due to nonparticipation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987) (default procedure and effect in disciplinary proceedings)
- In re Roose, 69 P.3d 43 (Colo. 2003) (use of ABA Standards in sanction analysis)
- People v. Rivers, 933 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1997) (suspension for disregarding administrative suspension order)
- People v. Rolfe, 962 P.2d 981 (Colo. 1998) (ten years’ practice constitutes substantial experience for aggravation)
- People v. Cain, 791 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1990) (suspension warranted for failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation)
- In re Bauder, 980 P.2d 507 (Colo. 1999) (refusal to participate can justify reinstatement requirements)