Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Wilbur
Citations: 796 P.2d 976; 14 Brief Times Rptr. 1158; 1990 Colo. LEXIS 562; 1990 WL 129126Docket: No. 90SA281
Court: Supreme Court of Colorado; September 10, 1990; Colorado; State Supreme Court
A grievance complaint was filed against James F. Wilbur for unprofessional conduct related to his representation of client Thomas Russell in collecting funds from the sale of Russell’s office building. After the complaint, Wilbur and the assistant disciplinary counsel reached a stipulation agreeing to the facts and consenting to a suspension of no less than one year and one day and no more than three years, pending court approval. The Grievance Committee's hearing panel recommended an eighteen-month suspension, but the court ultimately approved the stipulation and imposed a three-year suspension. Wilbur was retained by Russell in 1988 for $1,036 to initiate foreclosure proceedings after unsuccessful negotiations with the debtor-partnership. Despite Russell's repeated inquiries, Wilbur falsely stated that he was advancing the foreclosure process and misrepresented obtaining a stay in bankruptcy proceedings. He fabricated documentation to support these lies, leading Russell to list the property for sale, which was subsequently discovered to be based on fraudulent documents. Russell claims to have suffered over $50,000 in losses, while Wilbur contests that the losses were between $5,000 and $10,000. The stipulated violations of the Disciplinary Rules included dishonesty, fraud, and failure to fulfill the client's lawful objectives. Although the inquiry panel recommended an eighteen-month suspension and assessment of costs, the court deemed a three-year suspension more fitting due to the severity of Wilbur's actions, despite his lack of prior disciplinary issues, emotional challenges at the time, and cooperation during the investigation. Mitigating circumstances in the case do not excuse the respondent's misrepresentation and deceit towards his client, which caused serious harm. Despite the absence of personal financial gain from the misconduct, the severity of the injury to the client is notable. Without significant mitigation, a harsher sanction would have been warranted. Disbarment is typically appropriate for intentional fraud or misrepresentation that undermines a lawyer's fitness to practice. However, after considering both the misconduct's seriousness and the mitigating factors, a three-year suspension is deemed appropriate. The suspension for James F. Wilbur will take effect thirty days from the opinion date. He must adhere to C.R.C.P. 241.21 regarding the closure of legal matters, notifying clients and opposing counsel, and maintaining compliance records. Reinstatement requires clear evidence of fitness to practice, compliance with C.R.C.P. 241.22, and restitution to the client affected by the misconduct. Additionally, the respondent is responsible for paying $60.35 in costs related to these proceedings within thirty days.