People v. Rasure

Citations: 212 P.3d 973; 2009 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 71; 2009 WL 2142357Docket: 07PDJ078, 07PDJ085, 08PDJ004, 08PDJ027, 08PDJ040, 08PDJ057

Court: Supreme Court of Colorado; May 20, 2009; Colorado; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Charles William Rasure, Jr. was disbarred from practicing law in Colorado following a sanctions hearing conducted by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. The disbarment, effective June 20, 2009, was a result of Rasure's pattern of misconduct, notably the knowing conversion of client property. He failed to respond to multiple complaints filed against him, leading to default judgments that established violations of various Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC), including 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.15(a), 1.15(f)(1), 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). Rasure did not attend the sanctions hearings held on November 20, 2008, and February 19, 2009, nor did he provide any mitigating evidence.

The procedural history indicates that multiple complaints were filed against Rasure between December 2007 and June 2008, to which he did not respond. Consequently, all allegations were deemed admitted, confirming his violations. One key incident involved Rasure misappropriating $13,600 from clients Clyde and Barbara Wilson, which was meant to be held in escrow during a property sale. Instead, he deposited these funds into his personal account without authorization, leading to their eventual dismissal of the associated court case for lack of action. The disbarment reflects the severity of his actions and failure to engage in the disciplinary process.

Respondent failed to return $13,600.00 in escrow funds to the Wilsons, providing various excuses for the delay. Following a complaint from Mr. Wilson on August 28, 2007, Respondent returned the funds but had previously exercised unauthorized control over them, violating Colo. RPC 8.4(c) and Colo. RPC 1.15(a) by not keeping the escrow funds separate from his personal accounts. 

In the Bishop Matter, Genevieve Bishop retained Respondent for probate-related issues after her ex-husband’s death and paid a $5,000.00 retainer. Respondent filed a claim in the probate case, which the court later required Ms. Bishop to pursue in civil court. Following procedural missteps, including a failure to comply with court deadlines, Respondent allowed the civil action to be dismissed without Ms. Bishop’s authorization, violating Colo. RPC 1.3 by not filing and prosecuting the case timely, resulting in Ms. Bishop losing her claims against her ex-husband's estate.

In the Mazili Matter, Christine Mazili hired Respondent and paid a total of $5,000.00 in retainer fees. Respondent improperly transferred funds into his operating account before performing sufficient work, and after a court granted summary judgment against Ms. Mazili based on Respondent's inadequate response, he failed to inform her of the judgment for over two months and did not seek reconsideration, constituting further violations of Colo. RPC 1.3.

Ms. Mazili retained Respondent on April 28, 2006, for a legal matter against her sister, emphasizing the urgency of the case. However, Respondent took no action for five months, yet collected the full $5,000 retainer by July 29, 2006. He violated Colo. RPC 8.4(c) by transferring the retainer to his operating account before earning it and breached Colo. RPC 1.15(a) and (f)(1) by failing to keep unearned funds separate. Additionally, he neglected Ms. Mazili's case in violation of Colo. RPC 1.3 and failed to communicate critical updates regarding a summary judgment, violating Colo. RPC 1.4(a) and (b).

In the Albrecht matter from April 2004, Christine Albrecht hired Respondent regarding a real estate dispute, giving him $4,800 to hold in escrow. He deposited the funds into a COLTAF account but removed them when the account closed without notifying Ms. Albrecht or obtaining her authorization. After the dispute resolved without his assistance, Ms. Albrecht sought the return of her funds starting in September 2006. Respondent initially ignored her requests, later promised to refund the escrow but did not follow through. Following a complaint to the authorities in August 2007, he failed to provide requested documentation and did not participate in the investigation. In October 2007, he repaid her using a personal check, violating several rules including Colo. RPC 8.4(c) for unauthorized control over client funds and Colo. RPC 8.1(b) for failing to respond to the investigation.

In early 2007, Margarita Johnson hired Respondent for her mother's estate, with her husband paying a $17,500 retainer. Although Respondent obtained a tax ID for the estate, he failed to file necessary pleadings. When Ms. Johnson inquired about the probate case's status, he falsely attributed delays to the probate court. Upon contacting the court, she discovered that her appointment as personal representative was never filed, prompting her to request that Respondent file the required documents.

Ms. Johnson discovered that her probate case had not been filed and was unable to reach Respondent for clarification. The Colorado Supreme Court suspended Respondent from practicing law in late November 2007, but he did not inform Ms. Johnson of his suspension, nor did he return her file or refund the unearned portion of her $17,500 retainer. When confronted, Respondent falsely assured her that he would resolve the matter soon. Ms. Johnson hired new counsel who initiated the probate proceedings. Respondent misled Ms. Johnson by claiming the probate court rejected his filings, despite never having submitted them, and unlawfully kept the unearned retainer, violating Colo. RPC 8.4(c). He also breached Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 1.16(d) by neglecting her case, failing to communicate adequately, and not returning her property.

In a separate case, Respondent represented a group of subdivision homeowners in litigation, for which they paid a $7,000 retainer. He entered his appearance and filed responses but failed to send invoices or keep the clients informed about their case. After Respondent was suspended from law practice in late November 2007 and again in January 2008, he did not notify his clients as required. Clients learned of his suspension through opposing counsel and subsequently hired new counsel. They requested the return of their file and an accounting of their funds, but Respondent did not comply. This behavior constituted violations of Colo. RPC 1.15(b), 1.16(d), and 8.4(c) due to the conversion of the unearned retainer and deceit regarding his suspension. Sanctions for Respondent's misconduct will be determined based on ABA Standards and Colorado Supreme Court precedents.

In determining the appropriate sanction for lawyer misconduct, the Court evaluates the breached duty, the lawyer's mental state, the actual or potential harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating evidence, following ABA Standard 3.0. The Respondent did not participate in the proceedings, leading the Court to base its decision solely on established facts and violations detailed in the complaints and witness statements. The Court found that the Respondent breached multiple duties to clients and the legal system, including failure to preserve client property, perform services diligently, maintain candor, and adhere to legal rules. Aggravating factors identified included prior disciplinary actions, a dishonest motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple infractions, substantial legal experience, and indifference to restitution. The Court determined there was clear and convincing evidence for each aggravating factor, and the Respondent offered no mitigating evidence. The ABA Standards indicate that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for serious misconduct, particularly for knowingly converting client property. Although significant mitigating factors might counter disbarment, the Respondent failed to present any. The Court concluded that the Respondent's actions posed a danger to the public, justifying disbarment. Consequently, the Court ordered the disbarment of Charles William Rasure, Jr., effective in 31 days, and mandated he repay $17,500.00 to the Attorneys Fund for Client Protection, along with any additional amounts paid by the fund related to this case.

Respondent is ordered to pay the costs associated with these legal proceedings. The People are required to submit a 'Statement of Costs' within 15 days from the issuance of this order, and Respondent has 10 days to respond to that statement. The Court acknowledges the immediate suspension of Respondent from practicing law by the Colorado Supreme Court on January 16, 2008, and takes judicial notice of this event. The Court has reviewed statements from complaining witnesses Genevieve Bishop, Greg Ellis, and Yvonne Ellis, as well as relevant ABA Standards pertaining to Respondent's misconduct. These standards include various guidelines that Respondent's actions violated, highlighting the seriousness of the misconduct. References to previous cases involving attorneys in similar contexts are also provided to illustrate the implications of the misconduct.

Disbarment is deemed the presumptive sanction for serious misconduct, including knowingly converting client property, as established by the ABA Standards and Colorado Supreme Court case law. The conversion of client or third-party funds typically leads to disbarment, regardless of the lawyer's motives or intentions concerning the deprivation of the funds. In this case, the respondent failed to present any mitigating factors that could counter the presumption of disbarment. The respondent's actions included failing to protect client property, not performing diligently, lacking candor with clients, and violating legal rules affecting justice. Given the misconduct, mental state, actual and potential harm caused, and absence of mitigating factors, disbarment is supported by relevant standards and case law.

The Court orders Charles William Rasure, Jr. to be disbarred effective 31 days from the order date, with his name removed from the list of licensed attorneys in Colorado. He is required to pay $17,500 in restitution to the Attorneys Fund for Client Protection, alongside any additional amounts paid by the fund due to this case. Rasure must also cover the costs of the proceedings, with the People submitting a statement of costs within 15 days and Rasure allowed 10 days to respond.