|
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.
|