OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of Daniel E. Olsen

Public Reprimand of Daniel E. Olsen

2011-OLR-13

On January 31, 2011, the Supreme Court of Colorado publicly censured Mr. Olsen for misconduct based upon the following facts:

Mr. Olsen was hired by M.R. to represent her in a dissolution matter in Jefferson County District Court in the State of Colorado. Mr. Olsen also agreed to assist M.R. in a related dependency and neglect case concerning allegations that M.R.’s then husband, M.M., and their son had abused one of their two daughters.

In the dissolution matter, the court entered permanent orders in September 2003, requiring M.M. to pay M.R. child support and maintenance. M.M. appealed those orders. On December 3, 2004, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion remanding portions of the permanent orders relating to child support and maintenance to the trial court for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals’ opinion stated that, “[t]he current orders of child support and maintenance shall remain in effect.” The district court did not reconsider the child support and maintenance orders on its own initiative.

In the dependency and neglect matter, in April 2005, the court entered an order approving the parties’ stipulation regarding parenting time and decision-making.

In 2007, Mr. Olsen moved to Wisconsin, but he continued to represent clients in Colorado.

In September 2008, without consulting with Mr. Olsen, M.R. filed a motion for contempt against M.M. due to his failure to pay maintenance and child support to M.R. At a hearing on October 27, 2008, the magistrate interpreted the Court of Appeals’ opinion to mean there was no child support or maintenance order in place and set a hearing for November 13, 2008, to consider issues of child support and maintenance. On November 13, 2008, the court appointed Attorney Melton to represent M.M. Because he was listed as attorney of record, Attorney Melton contacted Mr. Olsen regarding the case. Mr. Olsen appeared on M.R.’s behalf. A hearing on the motion for contempt was re- set for January 12, 2009.

In light of the magistrate’s interpretation of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, Mr. Olsen subsequently filed a motion to withdraw M.R.’s motion for contempt just prior to the scheduled hearing on January 12, 2009. Three days later, the magistrate granted Mr. Olsen’s motion and directed Mr. Olsen to set a hearing for child support and maintenance issues.

The matter was subsequently transferred to the district court and a hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2009. At the hearing, the court ordered Mr. Olsen to prepare and submit a written stipulation for permanent orders by September 28, 2009. Mr. Olsen did not timely submit the stipulation. On October 5, 2009, the court issued an order to show cause, directing Mr. Olsen to appear on October 22, 2009, unless he submitted the order. Two days before Mr. Olsen had seen the order to show cause, the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation contacted him. Mr. Olsen then completed the stipulation for permanent orders in consultation with M.R. and filed it on October 20, 2009.

On November 9 and 10, 2010, a Hearing Board for the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation held a two-day hearing regarding allegations of misconduct against Mr. Olsen related to M.R.’s grievance. The Hearing Board concluded,

As he has admitted, Respondent’s failure to timely file a stipulation for permanent orders on behalf of his client violated Colo. PRC 1.3. However, we find that most of the allegations in the People’s complaint are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Rather, we find that Respondent provided high-quality, low-cost legal assistance to [M.R.]. Indeed, the legal profession and the public are well served when lawyers provide representation to clients like [M.R.] who might not otherwise have access to the courts. Discounted fees, however, do not excuse attention to detail. Despite our opinion that Respondent is a capable and well-intentioned lawyer, the Hearing Board is concerned that Respondent demonstrated poor organizational skills in representing [M.R.]. Effective representation of clients necessitates close attention to the less glamorous aspects of legal practice, such as keeping track of deadlines. Respondent’s lack of organization, if not corrected, could seriously harm his clients and lead to the imposition of more severe discipline. We strongly encourage Respondent to persevere in the measures he has instituted to improve his organization and administrative skills.

Respondent’s misconduct upon which his Colorado public censure was based consisted of failing to timely comply with the district court’s order that he prepare a stipulation for permanent orders by September 28, 2009, in violation of Colo. PRC 1.3.

Under SCR 22.22(2), Mr. Olsen is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney Daniel E. Olsen is hereby publicly reprimanded.