Court Opinions: Presiding Disciplinary Judge Opinion for May 2

Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.

People v. Herbert Jeffrey Marcus


Sometime after September 2020, Herbert Marcus began representing a client in several criminal matters.

Marcus orally discussed his fee agreement with the client, which he believed was a flat fee of $3,500 to work on the client’s pending cases. But Marcus has no written fee agreement with the client or a written statement regarding the basis or rate of his fee in the client’s cases. Nor does Marcus maintain any financial records regarding payments from his clients. 

In November 2021, Marcus filed two plea agreements for his client without ensuring his client understood the effect the pleas would have on the client’s immigration status. The court presiding over one of the cases continued the plea hearing to provide Marcus additional time to discuss the case with his client. Marcus’ client didn’t participate in the continued hearing, where Marcus said his client spoke perfect English and didn’t need an interpreter.

Marcus also implied his client was dishonest when his client previously asked for an interpreter. Marcus also revealed his client “had an immigration problem” and that his client’s sister had recently hired an immigration lawyer for advice about the plea’s immigration consequences. The court continued the hearing to May 2022. Marcus later filed an opinion letter by the immigration lawyer that contained personal information about the client’s immigration status, revealing confidential client information in a public court filing.

In another client matter, Marcus didn’t appear at his client’s disposition hearing in August 2022, causing the court to continue the hearing. Marcus also failed to appear at the continued hearing the next month. Marcus also didn’t maintain financial records of the client’s payments for legal services.

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Marcus’ stipulation to discipline and suspended him for one year and one day, with six months to be served and six months and one day to be stayed upon the successful completion of a one-year conditional probation. The suspension takes effect June 6.

Previous articleThe 100-Year-Old South Platte River Compact
Next articleColorado Law School Enrollment: A Deep Data Dive

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here