‘SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE FILED BEFORE THE PRESIDING DISCIPLINARY JUDGE 1560 Broadway, Suite 675 F Denver, Colorado 80202 FEB man epson nun aE SERBIA Complainant: ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO 4 COURT USE ONLY & Respondent: PATRICK W. BUCKINGHAM Case Number: Charles E. Mortimer, Jr., #16122 10PDI019 Assistant Regulation Counsel Attorney for Complainant 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202 ‘Telephone: (303) 866-6400 ext. 6443, Fax No.: (803) 893-5302 Patrick W. Buckingham, 409652 Respondent 219 Bast Vermijo Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 Telephone: (719) 635-0903, ‘STIPULATION, AGREEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT CONTAINING THE RESPONDENT'S CONDITIONAL ADMISSION OF MISCONDUCT On this {6 day of _ eboesy __, 2010, Charles B. Mortimer, Jr., Assistant Regulation Counsel and attérney for the complainant, and Patrick W. Buckingham, the respondent, enter into the following stipulation, agreement, and affidavit containing the respondent’ conditional admission of misconduct ('stipulation”) and submit the same to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for his consideration RECOMMENDATION: A 30-day suspension all stayed upon successful completion of a one-year period of probation, with conditions. 1, The respondent has taken and subscribed the oath of admission, ‘was admitted to the bar of this court on October 9, 1979, and is registered as ‘an attorney upon the official records of this court, registration no. 09652. Therespondent is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and the Presiding Disciplinary Judge in these proceedings. 2. The respondent enters into this stipulation freely and voluntarily. No promises have been made concerning future consideration, punishment, oF Tenience in the above-referenced matter. It is the respondent's personal decision, and the respondent affirms there has been no coercion or other intimidating acts by any person or agency concerning this matter. 3. This matter has not become public under the operation of C.R.C.P. 251.31(c) as amended. However, the respondent specifically acknowledges that, if the Presiding Disciplinary Judge should decide to accept this stipulation, and impose the agreed-to discipline contained herein, then this stipulation and the discipline imposed will be matters of public record. 4. The respondent is familiar with the rules of the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the procedure for discipline of attorneys and with the rights provided by those rules. The respondent acknowledges the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing on the above-referenced complaint. At any such hhearing, the respondent would have the right to be represented by counsel, present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine the witnesses presented by the complainant. At any such formal hearing, the complainant would have the burden of proof and would be required to prove the charges contained in the complaint with clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, having full knowledge of the right to such a formal hearing, the respondent waives that right, 5. The respondent and the complainant specifically waive the right to a hearing pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.22(c)(1), 6. The respondent and the complainant stipulate to the following facts and conclusions: a, On February 5, 2003, a client named Luis Diaz retained respondent for representation in connection with damages caused by the death of Mr. Diaz’ son, b. Mr. Diaz’ former wife also retained counsel. Mr. Diaz’ ex-wife's counsel:promptly settled the claims for damages arising from the son's death for an amount of $100,000.00. c. On January 14, 2005, Mr. Diaz’ former wife's attorney offered to settle the matter with Mr. Diaz by paying a certain portion of the$100,000.00 to Mr. Diaz. A dispute concerning reimbursement from Mr. Diaz to his former wife for a small amount of expenses ensued, 4. Thereafter, communication between respondent and Mr. Diaz’ former wife's attorney ceased, ©. According to Mr, Diaz, and verified by respondent's secretary, Mr. Diaz called respondent almost monthly to find out the status of the matter. In the meantime, Mr. Diaz’ former wife’s attorney changed firms. {. Mr. Diaz filed a request for investigation against the respondent in July 2009. Very shortly thereafter, respondent settled the matter and paid the disputed expense from his own fee. g Respondent violated Colo. RPC. 1.3 and 14la) and (b). ‘Through respondent’s conduct described above, the respondent has engaged in conduct constituting grounds for the imposition of discipline pursuant to CRP. 251.5 7. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.92, the respondent agrees to pay costs in the amount of $91.00 (a copy of the statement of costs is attached hereto as, Exhibit A) incurred in conjunction with this matter within thirty (30) days after acceptance of the stipulation by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, made payable to Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Offices. The respondent agrees that statutory interest shall accrue from the date that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge accepts this stipulation. Should the respondent fail to make payment of the aforementioned costs and interest within (80) days, the respondent specifically agrees to be responsible for all additional costs and expenses, such as reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection incurred by the complainant in collecting the above stated amount. The complainant may amend the amount of the judgment for the additional costs and expenses by providing a motion and bill of costs to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, which identifies this paragraph of the stipulation and the respondent's default on the payment, 8, This stipulation is premised and conditioned upon acceptance of the same by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. If for any reason the stipulation is not accepted without changes or modification, then the admissions, confessions, and stipulations made by the respondent will be of no effect. Either party will have the opportunity to accept or reject any modification. If either party rejects the modification, then the parties shall be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing; and no confession, stipulation, or other statement made by the respondent in conjunction with this offer to accept discipline of a 30-daysuspension all stayed during a one-year period of probation with conditions may be subsequently used. If the stipulation is rejected, then the matter will be heard and considered pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.18, 9. The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has notified or will notify shortly after the parties sign this agreement, the complaining witness in the ‘matter(s) of the proposed disposition. PRIOR DISCIPLINE 10. a. Respondent received a public censure in 1997. b. Respondent received a letter of admonition in 1987, ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINE 11. Pursuant to American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 1991 and Supp. 1992 (‘ABA Standard®’), §3.0, the Court should consider the following factors generally: a. The duty violated: Respondent violated his duty to represent his client diligently and to communicate reasonably with his client. b, The lawyer's mental state: knowing. ©. The actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct: Mr, Diaz! receipt of settlement funds was postponed for many months, . The existence of aggravating or mitigating factors: Factors in aggravation which are present include: prior disciplinary offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law, ABA Standards §9.22(a) and (i). Factors in mitigation include: absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and cooperative attitude toward proceedings, ABA Standards §9.32(b) and (e) 12. Pursuant to ABA Standard §4.42: ‘Suspension is generally appropriate when: “(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client...” 13. The discipline agreed to herein is supported by the common law. In People v. Masson, 782 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1989) and People v. Akolt, 823 P.2d 707 (Colo. 1992), the respondent attorneys were each suspended for 30 days for neglecting client matters.14. Considering all of the factors described above, as applied to this case, a suspension of 30 days, all stayed for a probationary period of one year with conditions is an appropriate sanction. Respondent meets the eligibility requirements for probation set forth in C.R.C.P. 251.7(a). CONDITIONS 15. Probation. ‘The parties stipulate that the respondent is eligible for probation pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.7(a). Successful completion of all these terms shall stay the imposition of 30 days of the suspension. a. The respondent shall be on probation for a one-year period of time. b. Mandatory Rule Condition. During the period of probation, the respondent shall not engage in any further violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. See C.R.C.P. 251.7(b) (The conditions [of probation]...shall include no further violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct”) c. The respondent shall attend and successfully pass the one-day ethics school sponsored by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel within one year of the date this stipulation is approved. ‘The respondent shail register and pay the costs of ethics school within thirty (30) days of the date this stipulation is approved. Attendance at ethies school will count as 8 general CLE credits, including 7 ethics credits, The respondent may obtain the registration form for the ethics school on-line at ssnw.coloradosupremecourt.com, “Ethics School.” Instructions {for registering are on the registration form. d. The respondent shall undergo a law office audit as outlined in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 16. Violation of Conditions. If, during the period of probation, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel receives information that any condition may have been violated, the Regulation Counsel may file a motion with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge specifying the alleged violation and seeking an order that requires the attorney to show cause why the stay should not be lifted and the sanction activated for violation of the condition. See C.R.C.P. 251.7(e). The filing of such @ motion shail toll any period of suspension and probation until final action. Id. Any hearing shall be held pursuant to C.R.C.P.251.7(e). When, in a revocation hearing, the alleged violation of a condition is the respondent's failure to pay restitution or costs, the evidence of the failure to ay shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation. 1d. 17. _ Successful Completion of Conditions, Within thirty days and no Jess than fifteen days prior to the expiration of the period of probation, the respondent shall file an affidavit with the Regulation Counsel stating that the respondent has complied with all terms of probation and shall file with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge notice and a copy of such affidavit and application for an order showing successful completion of the period of probation. See CREP. 251.7(9. Upon receipt of this notice and absent objection from the Regulation Counsel, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge shall issue an order showing that the period of probation was successfully completed. Id. The order shall become effective upon the expiration of the period of probation. Jd.RECOMMENDATION FOR AND CONSENT TO DISCIPLINE Based on the foregoing, the parties hereto recommend that a 30-day suspension, all stayed during a one-year period of probation, with conditions as described above, be imposed upon the respondent. The respondent consents to the imposition of said discipline. The parties request that the Presiding Disciplinary Judge order that the effective date of such discipline be immediate. Patrick W. Buckingham, the respondent; and Charles B, Mortimer, Jr., attorney for the complainant, acknowledge by signing this document that they have read and reviewed the above and request the Presiding Disciplinary Judge to accept the stipulation as set forth al Patrick W. Buckingham, Respondent 72 £2. 219 East Vermijo Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 Telephone: (719) 635-0903 STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF } Subscribed and sworn to before me this _//**4 aay of , 2010, by Patrick W. Buckingham, respondent. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 4 /_2_//2 hee SAinte Assistant Regulation Counsel 1560 Broadway, Suite 1800 Denver, Colorado 80202 (803) 866-6400 x6443 Attorney for ComplainantGRIEVANCE COMMITTEE Soho October 12, 1988 PERSONAT. AND_CoPIDENErAL, 5 CERGTFTED WATE Nos P 760-179 136 ) RETORY RECEIPT RRgunSTED Vv Patrick W. Buckingham 730.N. Weber Colorado Springs, co 80903 Re: Request for investigation filed by ollie Neil Dear Mr. Buckingham: ‘The Inquiry Panel of the Supreme Court Grievance Committee has considered the request for investigation filed by Yollie Neil, and has concluded that you should be disciplined by this letter of admonition. The Panel concluded that you violated DR6-101(A) (3) - neglect of a legal matter entrusted to you - when you failed over a five and one half year period to either file suit in the Ralph Gibbe civil case or to return the File to Me. Neil with advise to obtain substitute counsel. Your conduct had the potential and may in fact have prejudiced Mr. Gibbs’ cause of action. You are admonished to avoid such conduct in the future. You are advised that you have the right, within twenty (20) days after the date of this letter, to make written request, that formal disciplinary proceedings’ be initiated against you to adjudicate the propriety of the conduct upon which this letter ©f admonition is based. If such a request is made, this letter of admonition will be deemed vacated and the matter will be Processed by means of a complaint or otherwise in accordan with the colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding Lawyer Discipline and Disability Proceedings. Sincerely, GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT by: ge rie Oy we /3 cc: Tollie NeilSc SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO NO. 875a146 dune 2, 1997 ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF coLORADO, Complainant, PATRICK W. BUCKINGHAM, Avtorney-Respondent. Original Proceeding in Discipline BN BANC PUBLIC CENSURE Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary counsel Jobn S. Gleason, Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Complainant Frederick W. Newall Colorado Springs, Colorado Attorney for attorney-Respondent PER CURIAM‘me respondent and the assistant disciplinary counsel executed @ stipulation, agreement, and conditional admission of misconduct pursuant to C.R.C.P. 241.18. The parties agreed in the conditional admission to discipline in the range of a public censure to a thirty-day suspension from the practice of law. In approving the conditional admission, an inguiry panel of the supreme court grievance committee recommended that the respondent be publicly censured. We accept the conditional admission and the panel's recommendation. I the respondent was admitted to practice law in this state in 979. ‘the conditional admission provides as follows. In 1985, Veronica Flannigan and her husband, together with Ruth and Robert swaney, and Shirley Jo Anne Dietrich, now known as Shirley Jo ‘anne white (referred to collectively as "the investors"), Burchased a wobile hone park fron Willian and Betty Thompson. The investors assumed the balance of the Thompsons' note to Veryl and Cleta Marshall, in the ancunt of $266,781.74. ‘the investors sold the property in 1988 to James and Mary Anne Sorrentino. The Marshalls agreed to the sale so long as the ‘Thompsons and the investors xenained jointly and severally Mable along with the Sorrentinos for payment of the note, The original ‘thompson note to the Marshalls became essentially a wraparound agreement, and the note continued to be secured by a first deed of trust.When the Sorrentinos began missing payments, the Marshalle declared the note to be in default in February 1991. the Nershalls did not want the property back, however, and they nade it clear to the investors that they intended to file an action to collect on the note rather than foreclose on the mobile home Park. In March 1991, the investors reached a tentative settlement with the Marshalls whereby they would pay the Marshalls $100,000 in cash and execute an amortized note on the balance. According to the stipulation, $224,000 remained on the note to the Marshalls. At this point, the investors met with the respondent who agreed to represent all of them. The deputy disciplinary counsel indicates that the evidence would show that the respondent vadvised the parties that there might be a conflict among the warious investors, The Sorrentinos hired separate counsel. ‘The investors explained to the respondent that they wanted fo settle the matter and that they had all agreed to be equally responsible for the payment of the settlement that had been worked out with the Marshalls. The investors expected the Fespondent to finalize the settlement agreenent with the Marshalls and to negotiate with the Sorrentinos. ‘The conditional admission states that both the respondent and the lawyer for the Marshalls believed that the other was drafting the agreenent. In any event, the respondent did not prepare the agreenent because Fo agreement could be reached with the Sorrentinos. The