People v. Rosenfeld

Summary

In this Colorado attorney-discipline proceeding, the Hearing Board found that Alan David Rosenfeld violated rules governing diligence, client communication, withdrawal, compliance with tribunal orders, and discovery obligations. It imposed a six-month suspension, stayed upon successful completion of a one-year period of probation with conditions, while rejecting several other alleged violations.

Holdings

1. Rosenfeld violated Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.4 by repeatedly failing to respond to discovery and court orders and by failing to inform his clients of the discovery obligations and the risk of default.
2. Rosenfeld violated Colo. RPC 1.16(a) by continuing to represent clients when his personal and professional commitments left him unable to adequately attend to the complex civil litigation.
3. Rosenfeld violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c) by knowingly failing to timely comply with the trial court's order requiring payment of discovery-related costs.
4. Rosenfeld violated Colo. RPC 3.4(d) by failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with proper discovery requests.
5. The People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rosenfeld violated Colo. RPC 1.7(b). The clients' potentially conflicting interests were materially limited, but the record supported a finding that the conflict was waived after consultation.
6. The People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rosenfeld intended to disrupt the tribunal in violation of Colo. RPC 3.5(c).
7. The People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rosenfeld's charged closing-argument conduct violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d).
8. A six-month suspension, stayed upon successful completion of a one-year period of probation with conditions, was appropriate for Rosenfeld's pattern of knowing misconduct and the serious injury caused to multiple clients.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rosenfeld violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 and 1.4 by failing to act diligently and keep clients reasonably informed.
2. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 1.16(a) by continuing representation when his circumstances left him unable to provide competent and diligent representation.
3. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 3.4(c) by knowingly failing to comply with the trial court's order to pay discovery-related costs.
4. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 3.4(d) by failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with proper discovery requests.
5. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 1.7(b) through concurrent representation of clients with potentially divergent interests.
6. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 3.5(c) by intending to disrupt the tribunal through his closing argument.
7. Whether Rosenfeld violated Rule 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
8. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct, injury, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.

Disposition

other