People v. Bugg

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Blanck

    700 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Second, the respondent's failure to communicate with his client caused Oppel to spend unnecessary time, money, and effort to obtain information from the respondent concerning the status of the case. People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980). While Oppel may have been aggressive in her pursuit of information from the respondent, his failure to communicate with his client cannot be condoned.

  2. People v. Smith

    74 P.3d 566 (Colo. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Imposing a nine-month suspension on a lawyer whose legal assistant communicated false information to clients, notarized documents outside the presence of the signer, and failed to inform the attorney of attempts to contact him

    1990) (attorney suspended for six months for handling legal matter without adequate preparation, neglect of legal matter, failure to seek lawful objectives of client and gross negligence); People v. Larson, 716 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1986) (neglect of entrusted legal matter and failure to carry out contract of employment warrants six-month suspension); People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980) (failure to process estate, to file action, and to communicate with clients, when considered with the mitigating factor of personal problems, warrants six-month suspension). Factors in aggravation and mitigation were considered pursuant to ABA Standards 9.22 and 9.32 respectively.

  3. People v. Baptie

    796 P.2d 978 (Colo. 1990)

    See People v. Chappell, 783 P.2d 838, 840 (Colo. 1989); People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 513, 616 P.2d 133, 134-35 (1980). The failure of the respondent to take appropriate action on behalf of his client also violated DR7-101(A)(1) and constituted a failure to seek the lawful objectives of his client.

  4. People v. Dolan

    771 P.2d 505 (Colo. 1989)   Cited 3 times
    Suspending attorney for six months for failing to respond to repeated client inquiries and ceasing all work on matter, where several aggravating factors were present

    1982) (attorney's neglect or abandonment of legal matters entrusted to him warrants surrender of license for six months); People v. Emmert, 632 P.2d 562 (Colo. 1981) (attorney's neglect which caused adverse tax consequences to clients and exposed them to personal liability warrants six-month suspension); People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (Colo. 1980) (failure to process estate, to file action, and to communicate with clients, when considered with the mitigating factor of personal problems, warrants six-month suspension). Accordingly, we order that the respondent be suspended for six months.

  5. People v. Kendrick

    646 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1982)   Cited 5 times

    We are appalled by the continued instances of unprofessional, egregious, and scurrilous conduct shown by the respondent in the disciplinary complaints before us. A lawyer owes an obligation to his client to act with diligence in handling his clients' legal work. People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980). In our view, the respondent has intentionally and consistently abused the high ethical principles upon which the legal profession is based by neglecting the legal affairs entrusted to him or by handling such affairs with complete disregard of the rights and expectations of his clients.

  6. PEOPLE v. BUGG

    635 P.2d 881 (Colo. 1981)

    His conduct violated Rule 241(B) and the Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), and DR 7-101(A)(1). The respondent's background reflects that he was suspended from the practice of law in People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980) for a period of six months. He thereafter agreed to a continuance of the suspension pending the outcome of these proceedings.