Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:09:31 AM
I have written often on DA Chambers and what I believe is an action against her and against the public interest.
Today, I discovered an article by the Denver Post on the issue that presents more information. You will recall that the Rocky Mountain News only said that the identity theft victim settled without paying. It gets better. According to the Denver Post:
The collection agency later agreed to dismiss the complaint against Barrentine and paid her $220 as part of the dismissal.
This suggests to me that the collection agency not only didn't believe it could collect on the checks, it believed that its actions (meaning Attorney Steiner's actions) had created a liability for itself.
Chambers said her husband was just giving Barrentine guidance. The complaint said Nathan Chambers made a call to Steiner to talk about a potential civil trial over the checks and questioned him about jury instructions that he had submitted.
The two most interesting words to me in this paragraph are "jury instructions." Small Claims courts, where this should have been filed, do not have juries. I suspect, from incomplete reporting that this was filed in district court. If so, Attorney Steiner's conduct appears to be even more abusive than I first thought. Based on what I think I know about the system, the only reason someone would file or threaten to file in District court, rather than in Small Claims Court would be to run up the other side's bills.
Small Claims litigants can be represented by an attorney and the Court can award proven damages up to $5,000. Unless attorneys fees were outlandish, this $5,000 limit would never be approached on $300 worth of bad checks. If memory serves me, it costs about $50 to file in Small Claims Court vs. about $200 in District Court, amounts that are included in attorney's fees. Jury selection and a trial would likely add hours of attorney billing time. Compare that with a 30 minute Small Claims court trial.
The more I learn about what is going on here, the more abusive to the public interest it appears. Anyone care to question why I would want to see the State Supreme Court stripped of the power to make and enforce ethics rules?