Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
According to a disciplinary opinion, Ian Hicks engaged in misconduct in six separate matters. In one client matter, Hicks knowingly missed response deadlines to key motions, failed to take timely action to protect his client from wage garnishment and failed to inform his client about developments in the case, including that the client’s case had been dismissed. Hicks also didn’t file a proposed trial management order and failed to set and attend a pretrial conference as ordered.
In a second client matter, Hicks failed to transmit a settlement offer to his client, knowingly missed court deadlines and failed to timely participate in the discovery process, knowingly violated discovery rules and court orders related to discovery and document production and failed to inform his client about the need to appear for the client’s deposition and about the discovery violations he had committed, according to the opinion.
Hicks issued an out-of-state, invalid and unenforceable subpoena that included a false material statement of law and ordered the target to produce documents. In addition, he attempted to employ the invalid subpoena against an out-of-state individual, thereby violating that individual’s rights, according to the opinion. Hicks’s conduct in the matter multiplied the proceedings and led to dismissal of his client’s claims.
In a third matter, Hicks repeatedly failed to meet court deadlines, knowingly violated a court’s protective order and misrepresented in a motion for an extension the motion’s factual basis, according to the disciplinary opinion. Hicks failed to diligently adhere to court deadlines in a fourth client matter and he voluntarily dismissed a complaint in that matter rather than respond to a motion to dismiss and twice refiled the complaint in another county, thereby compounding the amount of work required in the matter for the courts and his opponents, according to the opinion.
In a fifth client matter, a client paid Hicks $500 to file a complaint. More than a year later, Hicks hadn’t filed the complaint nor did he communicate with his client about her matter or update her as to why he didn’t file the complaint. According to the opinion and despite the client’s requests for a refund, Hicks never returned her money and knowingly converted her funds. Hicks also allegedly represented the client despite his interest in having a sexual relationship with her, which materially limited the representation or created a significant risk that the representation would be materially limited.
The disciplinary opinion noted after Hicks was suspended in March 2023, he knowingly disobeyed his order of suspension by not timely withdrawing from his cases.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Hicks’ stipulation to discipline and disbarred him, effective Feb. 2.