|
<br />,;
<br />
<br />17G9
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />L.
<br />
<br />,,"Or "____"'.. .".....,,.
<br />
<br />604 Colo.
<br />
<br />.....~
<br />
<br />744 PACIFIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES
<br />
<br />to or 988 in privity with a party to a prior
<br />proceeding; (8) there W88 final judgment
<br />on the merits in the prior proceeding; and
<br />(4) the party against wbom the doctrine is
<br />aaaerted bad a full and fair opportunity to
<br />litigate the iBsue in the prior prooeeding.
<br />Industri41 Comm 'n. II. Moffat County
<br />School Di8~ RE No. J, 732 P.2d 616, 61~
<br />20 (Colo.1987); POfIII!rOI/ II. Waitkus, 183
<br />Colo. 844, 850-61, 517 P.2d 396, 899 (l973).
<br />A fundamental precept of common Jaw ad.
<br />judication is that a "right, question or fact
<br />distinctly put in issue and directly deter-
<br />mined by a court of competent jurisdiction
<br />. . . C&DPot be disputed in a subsequent suit
<br />between the same parties or their priv-
<br />ies.. .. .. Monl4na II. United SI4tes, 440
<br />U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Cl 970, 973, 59 I.Ed.2d
<br />210 (1979) (quoting Soutltem Pacific R.
<br />Co. II. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48-49, 18
<br />S.Cl 18, ZT, 42 LEd. 855 (1897)). In Den-
<br />.- I, we found that the United States had
<br />not attempted to 888ert or prove inatream
<br />flow rights for timber production and wa-
<br />ter flow purposes under the Organic Act
<br />and therefore the issue W88 not actually
<br />litigated and nec:easarily adjudicated. In-
<br />d...triGl Com... 'n, 732 P.2d at 619 (Colo.
<br />1987). A,,",onlingly, the United States is
<br />not coUaterally estopped from litigating
<br />this c:Iaim.
<br />
<br />We reverse and remand with directions
<br />for further prooeedings consistent with this
<br />opinion.
<br />
<br />.
<br />o .m......snmil
<br />
<br />The PEOPLE of the Slate of
<br />Colorado, Complainant.
<br />
<br />Y.
<br />
<br />Edward M. Y AKLICR,
<br />AUomey.Reopondent.
<br />No. 86SA360.
<br />
<br />Supreme Court of Colorado,
<br />En Bane.
<br />. Oct. 13, 198'7.
<br />
<br />Disciplinary proceedings were institut-
<br />ed against attorney. The Supreme Court,
<br />
<br />Rovira, J., held that: (I) attorney's J8ilo
<br />misconduct may be considered to _
<br />claims that he baa not neglected eIioalr
<br />needs, and (2) neglect of legal mattrr "'"
<br />ranta two-year suspension and ~tutQ.
<br />
<br />Ordered ac<:onlingly.
<br />
<br />I. AUomey and Client p53(2)
<br />Despite conflict in testimony, dient'.
<br />testimony which is by no means incredib.
<br />may constitute subatantial evidence sull;
<br />cient to support hearing board's fBctual
<br />findings when combined with attorney's sd-
<br />missions.
<br />
<br />2. Attomey and Client $>53(1)
<br />Evidence of attorney's prior miseo..
<br />duct is not precluded from all use except
<br />that of allowing hearing board to prepan
<br />its report. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 241.15(s),
<br />
<br />S. AUomey and C~nt p530)
<br />When attorney chooses to support his
<br />testimony in disciplinary hearing by claim.
<br />ing that he regularly attends to clients'
<br />needs, his prior misconduct may be used to
<br />refute that claim. Rules Civ.PrD<:., RuJ.s
<br />241.14(d), 241.15(a).
<br />
<br />4. AUomey and CUen! p58
<br />
<br />Neglect of important matter and fail.
<br />ure to carry out client's objective of obtain.
<br />ing custody of her child by attorney who
<br />baa previously been found guilty of miscall'
<br />duct warrants two-year suspension slong
<br />with order Of restitution.
<br />
<br />Linda Donnelly, Disciplinary Prosecutor,
<br />Denver, for complainant.
<br />
<br />McDennott, Han..n, Anderson & Reilly,
<br />Daniel M. Reilly, Denver, for attorney....
<br />spondent.
<br />
<br />ROVIRA, Justice.
<br />
<br />A fonnal complaint was filed with the
<br />Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Com.
<br />mittee alleging that reapondent, Edward M.
<br />
<br />,-
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />,~
<br />
<br />Y sklieh, had ac,,"pted
<br />jaining witness, rec.
<br />~si\ed to appear at h
<br />rly represent h
<br />~ of the GrievOl
<br />that misconduct had
<br />ded that respond,
<br />men f I '
<br />ractice 0 a w
<br />the P .
<br />red to make rest,t<
<br />de
<br />be llIl8essed the coS
<br />roeeedings. A hear
<br />p Committee con'
<br />an""
<br />The respondent h
<br />the report of the
<br />eontending that the
<br />ings of fact p.re .ur
<br />dence, that no mlSC
<br />the alternative, that
<br />tipline is toO had
<br />Grievance Commltt.
<br />rred ..nd also ,
<br />cu . I'
<br />mended diaClp me,
<br />dent is suspended I
<br />f r two years and
<br />o .
<br />tion to his chent
<br />proceedings.
<br />
<br />The respondent
<br />of the Supreme C<
<br />and admits the l'
<br />and our Grievance
<br />p....ctitioner with
<br />Pueblo, Colorado.
<br />
<br />On December
<br />for the f~t time
<br />complaining witn.
<br />yean of age at t
<br />had droPped out
<br />through her juni'
<br />G&rcill.. They ha
<br />months later. (
<br />problems which
<br />five times dunn'
<br />bined with his in
<br />led Sapeda to 1e
<br />during the mar:
<br />for the final UIT
<br />toOk Crystal wil
<br />Garcia appeared
<br />W88 staying,
<br />Thereafter, Sal
<br />
<br />
|