Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Saturday, October 07, 2006 5:14:22 PM
I frequently find newspaper articles that cover so much ground that they suggest multiple posts. Today, the Rocky Mountain News had just such an
article reporting on DA Carol Chambers' troubles with Attorney Regulation. I don't know any of the people involved, or anything about the issue save what is in the article. For the sake of this argument, let's assume everything is true. I'll have short comments on selected paragraphs, supplemented by full posts later.
"This has always been an interesting case to me because the Attorney Regulation Council has been turning a blind eye to the conduct of Mr. Steiner," Chambers said . . ."Based on our investigation, Mr. Steiner did absolutely nothing wrong," John Gleason said. "He had a professional obligation to report what he felt was misconduct by Mrs. Chambers." Steiner appears to have been threatening a victim of identity theft in some way to make what the thief stole good to his client. The DA in turn threatened to convene a grand jury on Stiener to stop his threats. The fact that the issue was settled without Stiener's client getting money indicates that Steiner was over the line with his threats. . . The reason Gleason says Stiener did absolutely nothing wrong is that there is no ethics rule against an attorney attempting to extort funds (as may or may not have happened) even when his cause is baseless. It seems that an attorney can threaten anyone, but a DA can't stop apparently baseless threats with a threat of his own. . .More later.
After receiving the message, "Steiner felt threatened and intimidated," according to the complaint. This appears to be the pot calling the kettle black. I wonder how the identity theft victim felt about Steiner's actions. No I don't! He sought help from the DA. Judges protect lawyers, lawyers protect judges, and no one protects the public, or in this case is allowed to protect the public.
The collections company was trying to recover money for two checks written to Wal-Mart - one for $192.15, the other for $128.17. Typical Rocky Reporting. As I recall, State law allows triple damages plus attorney's fees. My guess is that Steiner was trying to collect $1500 or more. Pro Se folks get nothing for their trouble. More later.
The counts Chambers is being investigated for include making "false or misleading statement of fact or law," threatening to prosecute Steiner, and using office "to intimidate a party in civil litigation." I wonder if Attorney Regulation took the false or misleading complaint from Steiner. I tried to make the same complaint against my opposing counsel and the complaint was rejected by Attorney Regulation because it did not go through my judge. More on the civil litigation business later. MUCH more later.
"I can tell you I'm an honest attorney," Steiner said . . . Barrentine said she was impressed that Chambers went to bat for her against a lawyer who wouldn't stop harassing her. She said Chambers was simply doing her job and deserves respect, rather than condemnation. I have to wonder if Steiner meant to say "I'm honest for an attorney." (My apologies to the many truly honest attorneys out there.)
"It was just incredibly poor judgment, and for a client of her husband and a political friend. There are so many red flags here that just say, 'stay away.' " Ummm. . . a non paying client, who wouldn't have been a client at all except . . . and not that close a friend. . . More later on the political friend comment.
Chambers accused an Arapahoe County judge of retaliating against her office for complaints it filed against some judges. Do I believe this could have happened. YOU BET! Do I believe that Chamber's current troubles are likely related to this? YOU BET! We have a very interesting Constitutional provision regarding judges that in no way protects the public. To call it one sided is an understatement. More later.
Chambers faces a three-day trial, starting Oct. 23, before Judge William Lucero, presiding disciplinary judge of the state Supreme Court. Every time you hear a lawyer or judge use the term "independent judiciary," think of the name Lucero. I do. More later.
I rather enjoy it when the legal system goes out of its way to embarrass itself as it is doing here. My advice (I'm not sure why I would bother to give advice as I can't even get the Supreme Court to answer my letter) is that, as Bob Grant says in another context in the article, "There are so many red flags here that just say, 'stay away.'"
-------
You will be seeing many of these issues again, in this and other contexts, but there is so much to do and so little time to do it in.