Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Stayed Suspensions In Colorado Misconduct Matters

A former client conflict led to a stayed nine month suspension and probation by the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge

Beginning in 2012, Rohweder represented two clients in separate domestic relations cases. During the representations, the clients married each other but soon began having disputes. Rohweder, as a friend, agreed to help them work through their conflicts. In 2015, Rohweder withdrew from their respective cases. In 2016, one of the former clients filed for divorce. During the divorce proceeding, Rohweder prepared and signed an affidavit as an exhibit to a pleading. The affidavit described an altercation that Rohweder had observed between his former clients when he was still their lawyer. Rohweder also described in the affidavit the abusive nature of one of the former clients, including divulging details about the former client’s conduct that Rohweder observed during the representation. Rohweder later provided the same information to the parental responsibilities evaluator assigned to the divorce case. The evaluator included the information in a confidential report prepared for the case.

A stayed suspension and probation also was ordered on these facts

Amos worked as a lawyer at a law firm from May 2018 until October 2020. In September 2020, an assistant was assigned specifically to work for Amos, who was experiencing personal issues and work-related stress at the time and who would sometimes drink in the office. On October 9, 2020, Amos and two other lawyers went to lunch; Amos consumed at least three or four beers, although his recollection thereafter is “hazy.” After returning to the office, Amos consumed more alcohol. That afternoon, Amos called his assistant into his office and began to ask her personal questions, including making queries about her girlfriend. He also commented on her body, inquired about her girlfriend’s body, speculated about her sexual history, and used derogatory language about her sexual orientation.

Although Amos has no memory of much of what he said or did during that afternoon, he does recall driving home early that evening. He acknowledges that he was intoxicated and should not have been driving. Although Amos was neither stopped nor charged with a criminal offense, he  acknowledges that his ability to drive was impaired, meeting the elements of the offense of driving while ability impaired under C.R.S. § 42-4-1301(1)(g). The law firm terminated Amos’s employment later that evening. The assistant eventually found working at the firm unbearable, as she kept recalling the incident. She has also reported other negative effects stemming from Amos’s harassment.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment