The assistant disciplinary counsel contends that disbarment is appropriate, citing People v. Ashley, 817 P.2d 965 (Colo. 1991); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991); and People v. Bergmann, 807 P.2d 568 (Colo. 1991). We find these cases distinguishable.
1991) (conversion of trust funds warrants disbarment); People v. Mulligan, 817 P.2d 1028 (Colo. 1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment); People v. Quick 716 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Colo. 1986) (approving the parties' conditional admission of misconduct and disbarring attorney for, among other things, theft of client's money).
1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991) (assisting client in fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment of the lawyer); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). Moreover, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards) states that "[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client."
1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991) (assisting client in fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment of the lawyer); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). Moreover, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards) state that "[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client."
1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991) (assisting client in fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment of the lawyer); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). Under the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards), in the absence of mitigating circumstances, "[d]isbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client."
1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991) (assisting client in fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment of the lawyer); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). If, as the hearing board found, the respondent's motivation for inducing Wingerter to make the loan was the expectation that Wingerter would permit the use of the anticipated $125,000 for collateral to capitalize the medical sales business, the respondent could not have actually known or intended that Wingerter lose the $100,000 principal.
Id. at 4.61. See Mulligan, 817 P.2d at 1028; People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds warrants disbarment). In aggravation, the board determined that the respondent's conduct was both selfish and dishonest, ABA Standards 9.22(b); Schilling was an especially vulnerable victim, id. at 9.
1991) (attorney disbarred for conversion of client funds); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991) (assisting client in fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment of the lawyer); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). The hearing board determined that the following factors were present in aggravation, and we agree: (1) a dishonest and selfish motive on the part of the respondent, ABA Standards 9.22(b); (2) a pattern of misconduct, id. at 9.
" People v. Margolin, 820 P.2d 347, 349 (Colo. 1991); see also People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). The respondent wholly defaulted below and in this court and we find that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to call for a sanction short of disbarment.
Oct. 7, 1991) (long-term conversion of client funds warrants disbarment); People v. Calt, No. 91SA215 (Colo. Sept. 16, 1991) (assisting client's fraudulent scheme to obtain funds from the client's employer warrants disbarment); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991) (conversion of client funds and knowing deception of clients warrants disbarment). Although the escrowed funds were the property of parties who were not clients of the respondent, such circumstance does not alter the fact that the respondent assumed fiduciary responsibility over the funds as a consequence of his role as attorney for a client.