People v. Rozan
277 P.3d 942
Colo.2011Background
- Rozan accepted a $30,000 retainer from Mark Allen, an ADMAX inmate in Colorado, to file federal habeas/petitions but never filed and used funds for personal purposes.
- Allen terminated representation and demanded refund; Rozan admitted not earning the full retainer and acknowledged owing funds but claimed he planned to file later.
- Respondent maintained a Texas practice with a Texas office; Allen was housed in Colorado, and Rozan had some Colorado-connected activities.
- Colorado Supreme Court regulator filed complaint alleging violations of Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c); PDJ granted partial judgments on the pleadings finding violations of 8.4(c) and related rules.
- The Hearing Board concluded, based on serious misconduct and aggravating factors including prior discipline in multiple jurisdictions, that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
- The PDJ addressed jurisdiction and choice-of-law, applying Colorado disciplinary rules despite Rozan’s Texas practice, concluding the predominant effect was in Colorado.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rozan violated 8.4(c) by misappropriating client funds | People: Rozan knowingly misappropriated Allen’s funds. | Rozan: He earned the fee via a Texas flat-fee arrangement and disputes that the funds were client property. | Yes; 8.4(c) was violated. |
| Whether Colorado rules apply and the court has jurisdiction | People: Colorado jurisdiction applies; conduct occurred with Colorado-connected elements. | Rozan: Texas rules should apply due to Texas practice and ADMAX as a federal enclave. | Colorado rules applied; jurisdiction established. |
| Whether partial judgments on pleadings were properly entered | People: Prior rulings show multiple rule violations; sanctions appropriate. | Rozan: Challenges to the structural posture were not fully briefed. | First and second orders entered; remaining claims addressed in sanctions phase. |
| Whether disbarment is warranted given aggravating/mitigating factors | People: Aggravating factors (extensive prior discipline; vulnerability of client; knowing misappropriation) outweigh any mitigation. | Rozan: Personal/emotional difficulties constitute mitigating factors; suspension could be warranted. | Disbarment warranted; aggravators outweigh mitigators. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lavenhar, 934 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1997) (knowing misappropriation warrants disbarment, absent extraordinary mitigation)
- In re Haines, 177 P.3d 1239 (Colo. 2008) (disciplinary treatment of lawyers; limits on sanctions for misconduct)
- People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986) (higher standards for attorney conduct; public protection focus)
- Torpy, 966 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1998) (presumptive disbarment for knowing misappropriation of client funds)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs of Arapahoe County v. Donoho, 144 Colo. 321, 356 P.2d 267 (Colo. 1960) (federal enclaves doctrine applied to state laws in some contexts)