§

People v. Abelman

804 P.2d 859 (Colo. 1991)
People v. Abelman

27 Citing cases

  1. People v. Stauffer

    858 P.2d 694 (Colo. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that the presiding officer of a hearing board did not abuse his discretion in entering an order of default against the attorney-respondent because of the complete absence of good cause for the respondent's failure to comply with discovery

    Stauffer v. People, No. 88CA0795 (Colo.App. Nov. 27, 1992), cert. denied, No. 93SC102 (Colo. July 12, 1993). As the hearing board concluded, the respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), see People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 861 (Colo. 1991) ( Abelman II) (possession of cocaine by attorney violates DR 1-102(A)(3)); DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law); as well as C.R.C.P. 241.6(3) (misconduct involving any act or omission violating the highest standards of honesty, justice or morality is grounds for discipline); and C.R.C.P. 241.6(5) (any act or omission violating the criminal laws of a state or of the United States constitutes ground for lawyer discipline). The respondent also failed to report his criminal conviction as required by C.R.C.P. 241.16(b).

  2. People v. Jensen

    10PDJ035 (Colo. Jan. 7, 2011)

    912 P.2d 556, 557-58 (Colo. 1996). In People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 863 (Colo. 1991) ( Abelman II), the court noted that the attorney did not cease his use of cocaine after his arrest on state drug charges and only sought treatment for his addiction after his second arrest on federal drug charges. In imposing a two-year suspension, the court found a number of mitigating factors but also found that the lawyer had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, had committed multiple offenses, and had substantial experience in the practice of law.

  3. People of the State v. Goldstein

    887 P.2d 634 (Colo. 1994)   Cited 25 times
    Declining to apply Standard 9.32(d) where a lawyer did not confess to his misdeeds or give information to his firm until he was confronted by members of his firm, when it was clear his misconduct would soon be discovered

    The respondent's misconduct therefore involved not only a serious crime, see C.R.C.P. 241.16(e), but also indifference to his professional obligations as an officer of the court. As we said in People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 863 (Colo. 1991): We are mindful that the primary purpose of attorney discipline is the protection of the public, People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Colo.

  4. Miss. Bar v. Easterly

    362 So. 3d 1 (Miss. 2020)

    The second is whether the transgressions are so remote in time that intervening developments and current circumstances dilute the public interest in proper and prompt discipline. Miss. Bar v. Thompson , 5 So. 3d 330, 339-40 (Miss. 2008) (quoting People v. Abelman , 804 P.2d 859, 862 (Colo. 1991) ). ¶10.

  5. People v. Elinoff

    No. GC98C109 (Colo. Sep. 17, 1999)

    See also People v. Sheffer, No. GC98A112 (Colo.P.D.J. 1999) 29 Colo. Law. 145 (Sept, 1999) (holding that disbarment was presumptive sanction for violation of forgery statute, a class 5 felony, but factors in mitigation resulted in suspension for two years). In People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 863 (Colo. 1991), the Colorado Supreme Court stated: We are mindful that the primary purpose of attorney discipline is the protection of the public, People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Colo.

  6. People v. Holt

    832 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Imposing suspension from practice of law for one year and one day where attorney used illegal drugs that included marijuana and cocaine, as well as failed to file personal state and federal income tax returns and failed to pay federal withholding taxes for professional corporation

    "The commission of serious offenses involving the possession and use of illegal drugs warrants a substantial sanction." People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 861 (Colo. 1991). Under the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1986) (ABA Standards), in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors, suspension is an appropriate sanction when "a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice." ABA Standards 5.12.

  7. People v. Rhodes

    829 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1992)   Cited 3 times
    Suspending for three years a lawyer who was convicted of distribution of cocaine after purchasing cocaine for an acquaintance on five occasions

    People v. Larsen, 808 P.2d 1265 (Colo. 1991); People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 862 n. 2 (Colo. 1991) (while disbarment is appropriate when an attorney sells, distributes, or imports illegal drugs, suspension is appropriate under all the circumstances). In Larsen, the respondent, an elected district attorney, received a three-year suspension for purchasing less than one-half ounce of marihuana to deliver to his wife.

  8. Miss. Bar v. Mount

    298 So. 3d 409 (Miss. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    In Mount, the Mississippi Bar petitioned for reciprocal discipline after the Louisiana Supreme Court had suspended an attorney for one year and one day, with the suspension completely deferred.

    The second is whether the transgressions are so remote in time that intervening developments and current circumstances dilute the public interest in proper and prompt discipline. Thompson , 5 So. 3d at 339–40 (quoting People v. Abelman , 804 P.2d 859, 862 (Colo. 1991) ). ¶ 16.

  9. Caldwell v. Miss. Bar

    118 So. 3d 549 (Miss. 2012)   Cited 8 times

    The second is whether the transgressions are so remote in time that intervening developments and current circumstances dilute the public interest in proper and prompt discipline.Thompson, 5 So.3d at 339–340 (quoting People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 862 (Colo.1991) (citing In re Silverman, 113 N.J. 193, 549 A.2d 1225, 1245–46 (1988))). ¶ 27.

  10. Mississippi Bar v. Thompson

    5 So. 3d 330 (Miss. 2008)   Cited 10 times
    Noting an absence of implied authority where an employee's actions were “not necessary, proper, and usual in the exercise of his express duties”

    The second is whether the transgressions are so remote in time that intervening developments and current circumstances dilute the public interest in proper and prompt discipline.People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859, 862 (Colo. 1991) (internal citations omitted). Thompson's conduct reflects a continuing pattern of neglect as to her professional responsibilities.