2009) (affirming a one-year suspension where attorney failed to deliver accounting to client, among other ethical violations), overruled on other grounds by Lockett v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 380 S.W.3d 19, 27–28 (Tenn.2012) ; see also People v. Weisbard, 35 P.3d 498, 509 (Colo.2000) (ordering an eighteen-month suspension where attorney refused to account and refund unearned funds, failed to return client calls for extended period of time, and committed other violations); In re Schmidt, 130 So.3d 908, 910, 913 (La.2013) (one-year and a day suspension imposed, along with requirement that attorney resolve fee disputes with clients, where attorney failed to provide an accounting, refund unearned funds, and cooperate with disciplinary authority). The Panel's original sanction is reinstated, along with the additional requirement that Ms. Reguli pay Mr. Castleman restitution in the amount of $7,800.

On May 29, 2001, the Supreme Court in the decision In re Weisbard, 25 P.3d 24 (Colo. 2001) affirmed the Hearing Board's decision, People v. Weisbard, 35 P.3d 498 (Colo.O.P.D.J. 2000), Case No. 99PDJ072, and suspended Weishard from the practice of law for a period of eighteen months effective June 29, 2001. In that default proceeding, Weisbard's misconduct arose from a fee dispute with a former law partner. Weisbard changed the locks on the firm's offices and took control of the operating and trust accounts.

. Even the district court in this case cited the Rule 60(b) standard set forth in People v. Weisbard , 35 P.3d 498, 501 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2000) when resolving Walker's Rule 6(b)(2) motion. ¶ 62 Second, courts balance equitable considerations when determining whether to accept untimely filings under Rule 6(b)(2) even without an express mandate to do so.