SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE BEFORE FILED ‘THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE 1560 Broadway, Suite 675 JAN 11 2010 Denver, Colorado 80202 Dapeeeeryures Compaen ARAYA ‘Tae PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO acourruseomva | Respondent: ACOURTUSEONUTA [ALAN JOEL POMERANZ Case Nomber: Apr, Metturrey, 434194 ‘Absitant Regulation Counsel 1 OPDJ 007 Sonn § Glesson,¥1S011 Regulation Counsel Attorneys for Complainant 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202 ‘Telephone: (303) 866-6400, ext. 6432 Fax No.: (303) 893-5302 COMPLAINT. THIS COMPLAINT is filed pursuant to the authority of C.R.C.P. 251.9 through 251.14, and it is alleged as follows: Jurisdiction 1. The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, was admitted to the bar of this Court on May 11, 1982, and is registered upon the official records of this Court, registration no. 11778. He is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court in these disciplinary proceedings. The respondent's registered business address is 1435 Larimer Street, Suite 205, Denver, Colorado, 80202. General Allegatio: 2. On February 1, 2007, Allen Marquez ("Marquez”) was contacted by the ‘Thornton Police Department and agreed to be interviewed regarding allegations made by Marquez’s niece that he sexually assaulted her.3. The police began interviewing Marquez regarding the allegations. ‘Marquez denied the allegations, 4. Marques’s wife, Ronda Marquez, believed her husband needed an attorney. Through family members, she learned of the respondent. She contacted the respondent. 5. The respondent immediately went to the police station and stopped the police interview of Marquez. 6. The respondent advised Allen and Ronda Marquez he could represent Allen Marquez for $5,000. At the time, no criminal charges had been filed ‘against Marquez. 7. On February 1, 2007, Bernice Miller (*Miller), Ronda Marquez’s mother, paid the respondent $5,000 via credit card payment. 8. An attorney-client relationship was formed between the respondent and Marquez, 9. Respondent did not deposit the $5,000 into his trust account. 10. The respondent did not provide a billing statement to Marquez to indicate whether any of these funds had been eared, 11. On February 7, 2007, Marquez and the respondent entered into a written fee agreement which provided the respondent would represent Marquez on the sex assault matter in Adams County; that the retainer fee was $5,000; and that the hourly rate was $250. 12. On February 20, 2007, Marquez was charged in Adams County with sex assault on a child, C.R.S. §18-3-405(1), a Class 4 Felony, in People v. Allen Mark Marquez, case no. 07CR561 (Adams County District Court). 13. The respondent did not appear with Marquez at his first court appearance on February 20, 2007. 14. The respondent appeared in court with Marquez at the next appearance on April 12, 2007. 15. The respondent did not obtain the discovery in the criminal case until May 10, 2007. 16. In May 2007, the district attorney (‘DA") offered a plea to attempted sexual assault, a Class 5 Felony, with open sentencing for one to six years. Marquez rejected the DA’s plea offer.17. The respondent advised Marquez that the original fee agreement needed to be changed to account for the cost of going to trial. 18. The respondent and Marquez agreed the respondent would take the case to trial for $25,000, and that the costs of an investigator and expert would be in addition to the $25,000. 19. On June 1, 2007, Miller paid the respondent $25,000 via three credit card payments. The respondent did not deposit these funds into his trust, account. 20. Marquez understood the cost for attorney fees for the respondent to take the matter to trial was $25,000. 21. On the original fee agreement, the respondent wrote, “25,000 paid by Bernice Miller for motions and/or trial—fees for investigator, expert report are additional—plea offer declined”. This modification was signed by Allen Marquez and Bernice Miller, and is dated *6-6-07", 22. On June 7, 2007, Marquez waived the preliminary hearing and the matter was transferred to district court for arraignment on July 27, 2007. 23. On July 27, 2007, Marquez entered a not guilty plea and the matter was set for trial for December 10, 2007. 24. After Marquez rejected the plea deal, in August 2007, the respondent consulted with attorney Colin Bresee ("Bresee’) regarding the case. 25. Bresee recommended the respondent hire investigator Richard Webb ("Webb"). 26. In August 2007, the respondent hired Webb to assist with the 27. The respondent considered hiring an expert, but determined it would be too expensive. 28, Bresee reviewed the case and assisted the respondent with preparation of motions and preparation for the motions hearing. 29. Webb interviewed witnesses, prepared summaries of the interviews, drafted motions, drafted subpoenas duces tecum, and prepared reports for the respondent regarding the status of the case and Webb's investigation.30. In October 2007, the respondent requested additional funds from Marquez, 31. Miller paid the respondent $2,750 via check. These funds were not deposited into the respondent's trust account. 32. At the end of October 2007, the respondent moved to continue the motions date and the jury trial, explaining in the motion that despite requests by him, his client was only ‘recently able to afford and retain a private investigator. 33. ‘This motion was granted and the trial was continued to April 2008. 34. In November 2007, the respondent requested additional funds from Marquez. 35. Miller paid the respondent $7,500 via check. These funds were deposited into the respondent's trust account. 36. The respondent used $3,975 of those funds to pay Webb. 37. In December 2007, the respondent requested additional funds, 38. Miller paid the respondent $5,000 via credit card. These funds ‘were not deposited into the respondent's trust account. 39. By the end of December 2007, Miller had paid the respondent $45,250 for the Marquez matter. 40. During the representation, the respondent did not provide billing or expense statements to Marquez; thus, Marquez did not know what had been eared or spent. 41. The respondent initially paid Webb with funds he requested from Marquez; thereafter, Marquez paid Webb directly. 42. Based on investigation done by Webb in February and March 2008, Webb advised the respondent a continuance might be necessary to further develop evidence regarding discovery issues, including additional exculpatory evidence Webb had learned about. 43. In March 2008, the case was continued again, based on the respondent's motion to continue due to the DA's failure to produce discovery. ‘The DA was sanctioned with a limiting instruction regarding one of their witnesses. The case was re-set for trial for September 2, 2008,44, In the summer of 2008, the respondent moved offices. 45. _ The respondent did not notify Marquez or Webb of the respondent's new office location. 46. Marquez had trouble getting in contact with the respondent. In the summer of 2008, he left messages for the respondent, but the respondent would not call him back. 47. Webb also had difficultly getting in contact with the respondent. 48. Webb communicated with Bresee regarding the case, 49. Webb tried to contact the respondent in the summer of 2008, without success, 50. In summer 2008, via facsimile and email, Webb provided the respondent with written reports regarding additional witnesses that needed to bbe endorsed for the trial; respondent did not endorse these witnesses. 51. As the September 2008 trial date approached, Webb discussed with Marquez his concerns about the respondent's level of preparation for trial, including that the respondent had not endorsed some witnesses; that the respondent had not subpoenaed witnesses for the trial; and that the respondent had not personally spoken to some of the witnesses Webb identified for trial; and that Webb was having difficulty getting in contact with the respondent. 52. Marquez was also concerned about the respondent's preparation, for the trial. Marquez was having trouble getting in contact with the respondent as well, and the respondent had not yet prepared Marquez for his own testimony. 53. On August 21, 2008, the respondent met with Marquez. 54. According to the invoice the respondent provided to Marquez after the representation ended, he billed Marquez for 3 1/2 hours of time for the ‘August 21, 2008 meeting, 55. According to Marquez, the respondent was not at his house more than fifteen minutes, during which time the respondent requested Marquez pay additional funds in the amount of $15,000 in order for the respondent to represent Marquez at trial. 56. Marquez was concerned about the respondent's legal representation and frustrated with the respondent.