Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
In January 2022, while representing a client in a domestic relations matter, Eliana Chavez agreed to the opposing counsel’s request to continue the permanent orders hearing so that the client’s spouse could travel to Mexico. According to the disciplinary opinion, Chavez’s client withdrew his agreement to continue the hearing about one week later. During the next eight days, the client texted and emailed Chavez multiple times for a status update on his case. The disciplinary opinion noted Chavez neither timely responded to the communications nor informed her client the presiding court had granted the request to continue the matter.
When Chavez finally contacted her client, she told him that she would request an emergency hearing. But Chavez confused her client’s matter with another case and never requested the hearing. Over the next month, the client sought to discuss his case with Chavez, who repeatedly rescheduled the client’s telephone calls, according to the disciplinary opinion. The client eventually contacted the court and learned the court had authorized his spouse to travel to Mexico based on an unopposed motion.
In another client’s dissolution case, the disciplinary opinion noted Chavez and her client twice failed to appear at an initial status conference, leading the presiding court to dismiss the client’s case. At both conferences, the court had arranged for a certified Spanish language interpreter to be present. The court reopened the case on Chavez’s motion and eventually entered a decree of dissolution.
In a third dissolution matter, Chavez didn’t appear at her client’s ISC in May 2023 after the client told Chavez she wanted the case to close without incurring additional fees, according to the disciplinary opinion. Chavez didn’t reset the ISC, and the presiding court dismissed the case.
Eight days later, Chavez moved to reopen the case. At the ISC in July 2023, the disciplinary opinion noted Chavez said she would file her client’s sworn financial statements that week, but she didn’t file the documents until almost two months later after the presiding court issued an order to show cause requiring the parties to file their respective sworn financial statements and certificates.
The Presiding Officer approved Chavez’s amended stipulation to discipline and publicly censured her, effective Jan. 10. The opinion noted the public censure takes into account mitigating factors as well as a contemporaneous order approving the parties’ stipulation to extend by one year Chavez’s period of probation in case number 21PDJ070, during which time Chavez must comply with certain conditions, including practice monitoring, imposed in that case.
People v. Matthew David Keller
In December 2019, Matthew Keller entered into a contract with Alternative Defense Counsel for $7,000 to represent a client in a Rule 35(c) petition in a felony criminal matter. This was Keller’s first time representing a client in a Rule 35(c) petition in a felony case. Keller met with the client on Jan. 7, 2020, after cursorily reviewing some discovery. The following day, Keller withdrew $431.60 from his firm’s trust account to pay himself for his work on the case as of that date, believing he had received funds from ADC and had deposited them in trust. But Keller didn’t receive a portion of ADC’s fee until Jan. 13, 2020, according to the disciplinary opinion. Though those funds from ADC were considered earned per the ADC contract, Keller didn’t replace the $431.60 he took from his trust account as partial payment until 2022, when he discovered the error after inquiry by disciplinary authorities.
The presiding court directed Keller to file status reports every 30 days. But Keller failed to timely file two reports in spring 2020. In April 2020, the court ordered him to file his overdue report. Keller complied but then failed to file a status report in May 2020, according to the disciplinary opinion. In a status report in early autumn 2020, Keller requested another 60 days to file either an amended Rule 35(c) petition or a notice that his client abandoned the petition. The court granted the request.
Keller informed his client in October 2020 that he didn’t think there were any viable Rule 35(c) claims to pursue. But the client didn’t want to abandon the petition. Keller didn’t know how to move forward, but he didn’t seek help with the case, the disciplinary opinion noted. Between October 2020 and May 2021, Keller didn’t communicate with the client. In May 2021, Keller sent the client a letter, vowing to file a motion that summer. But Keller didn’t do so. Nor did he seek guidance or assistance in handling the matter. Keller ended his ADC contract in December 2021 and later admitted to abandoning the case. He moved in September 2022 to reopen the client’s case, which the court granted. According to the opinion, Keller also sent the client an apology letter and promised to finish the Rule 35(c) petition. But Keller didn’t visit the client or finish the petition. In December 2022, Keller withdrew from all of his cases and changed his licensure status to inactive.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Keller’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him for six months, all to be stayed pending Keller’s successful completion of a two-year conditional probation, effective Jan. 10.