People v. Bath

410 P.3d 859 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2018) · Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge · January 16, 2018

Summary

The Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended David Eugene Bath from practicing law for two years. Bath violated professional-conduct rules by providing financial assistance to a client in pending litigation, failing to preserve disputed settlement funds relating to a medical lien, and negligently misrepresenting that the lien would be paid. The court also ordered compliance with winding-up requirements and payment of proceeding costs.

Court
Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Writing for the Court
William R. Lucero, Presiding Disciplinary Judge
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Decision date
January 16, 2018
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding in which the People obtained an entry of default after Respondent failed to answer the disciplinary complaint; the court then conducted a sanctions hearing.
Standard of review
The court determined the appropriate disciplinary sanction by considering the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the actual or potential injury, and aggravating and mitigating factors under the ABA Standards and Colorado disciplinary precedent.
Precedential value
Published Colorado disciplinary opinion
Parties
The People v. David Eugene Bath
Disposition
other

Topics

remediesadministrative law

Practice areas

legal ethics and professional responsibilityattorney disciplinelegal malpractice and professional liabilityremedies

Questions Presented

  1. What professional-conduct violations were established by Respondent's failure to pay or preserve the medical lien and by his advances to the client during pending litigation?
  2. What mental state was established for the alleged dishonest-conduct violation under Colo. RPC 8.4(c)?
  3. What sanction was warranted after consideration of the presumptive sanctions and aggravating and mitigating factors?

Holdings

  1. Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.8(e) by advancing substantial living expenses to Dana in connection with her pending personal-injury litigation while expecting reimbursement from the settlement proceeds.
  2. Respondent violated Colo. RPC 1.15A(c) by distributing settlement funds despite knowing that Synergy claimed an interest in those funds and failing to retain the disputed funds in trust until the claim was resolved.
  3. Respondent violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c), but the established facts showed that the violation was negligent rather than knowing or intentional.
  4. A two-year suspension was warranted based on the presumptive sanction of suspension, Respondent's six aggravating factors, and the absence of mitigating factors.

Key quotations

Respondent's misconduct warrants his suspension for two years. (at 860)
Though prior cases are helpful by way of analogy, the Court is charged with determining the appropriate sanction for a lawyer's misconduct on a case-by-case basis. (at 863)
Taking into consideration the number of aggravators and lack of mitigators, the Court suspends Respondent for two years. (at 864)

Factual background

David Eugene Bath represented Mariyah Dana in a personal-injury matter and knew that Dana had assigned a medical lien to Synergy Chiropractic Clinics. During the pending litigation, Bath advanced Dana more than $19,000 for living expenses, expecting reimbursement from the settlement. After Dana's claim settled for $60,000, Bath distributed the settlement proceeds without satisfying Synergy's lien, later offered to settle the lien, and then failed to pay it.

Procedural history

The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed a disciplinary complaint on June 26, 2017, and served Respondent at his registered business and home addresses. Respondent failed to answer, so the court granted the People's motion for default and deemed the complaint's factual allegations admitted and the rule violations established by clear and convincing evidence. Following a November 21, 2017 sanctions hearing at which Respondent appeared pro se and testified, the court imposed a two-year suspension and assessed costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…