Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/10/16) */
On 2/26/2014, *** ** *** paid $to retain Driver's Legal Plan, which also operates as the Law Office of *** ** ***, to represent him for a "Careless Driving" charge in Garfield County, Colorado*** *** has been licensed to
practice law as an attorney in the State of Colorado since 1/22/and was in good standing with the Colorado State Bar throughout his representation of Mr***Mr*** entered an appearance as Mr***'s attorney and began the process of negotiating a plea deal to reduce Mr***'s chargesMr*** and his employees did extensive work with the court in representing Mr***, which involved phone calls, faxed documents, and emails between Mr***'s office and the courtThe plea negotiation also involved phone call and emails between Mr***'s office and Mr***'s former employer to verify insurance coverage for the accident involved as a precondition to the District Attorney offering Mr*** a plea deal
As a result of the efforts of Mr*** and his employees, the prosecutor offered to reduce Mr***'s charge of "Careless Driving" to a lesser charge of "Defective Vehicle"Mr*** was informed of the plea deal and decided not to accept itDistrict Attorney *** *** was surprised Mr*** did not want to accept the plea deal and requested Mr***'s office have Mr*** review the police report, which was sent to Mr*** on 5/7/
Between May and May 16th, 2014, Mr*** sent a string of increasingly irrational and hostile messages to Mr***'s officeIncluded among Mr***'s messages were requests that we enter a plea of guilty on his behalf to the original charge of "Careless Driving", as excerpted below:
5/10/2014: "I would much rather take the careless over the plea deal"
5/10/2014: "Have my name affixed on the careless driving"
5/11/2014: "I would like to withdraw my NOT GUILTY plea and enter in a plea if GUILTY in the CARELESS DRIVINGI'm consenting to have my name affixed to anything that needs signed*** D ***."
5/11/2014: "Enter in that careless and get it all transferred through the compactI won't be driving anymore anywaysI'm going to get my medical card and fish, pan gold, go out on the boat and jet ski instead"
Mr***'s office informed Mr*** on 5/12/that we would enter the guilty plea as requestedMr*** was informed on 5/13/that he now owes fines and court costs to the court totaling $238.50, due by 5/29/2014, which Mr***'s office offered to facilitate with the courtOn May 14th Mr*** emailed instructions for Mr***'s office to charge his credit card for the fines due to the courtThe card was declinedMr*** was informed of this via email by attorney *** *** of Mr***'s officeMr***'s response of May 15th at 7:37am was thus:
"i made it back just in time to play a game with BVCTHEY PULLED A GUN ON ME so now I either have to kill them or get shot when I see them because ill be their ***there is a hour suspense Ill leave them in starting nowJust wanted to keep you up to date with the transitionhey also confiscated te CDLLOVE YUHH GUYS!!!1"
It is at this point Mr*** and his employees made the decision to withdraw from representing Mr*** any further in this matterMr*** was notified of this on 5/15/and a motion to withdraw was filed with the court that same dayMr*** sent one final message in response:
"Im under my lawHeres the rulesany =body entering my premises and whatever they have consentually agrees everything of theirs is mine until they have enough power to take it then everything becomes theirsI dont ned licenses but thanks."
On 5/29/Mr***'s office was informed by the court that Judge *** ** *** has denied our motion to withdraw on the ground that Mr*** is not a licensed Colorado attorneyIt is not known how the Judge came to that determination, as Mr***'s Colorado Attorney Number was listed on both the Motion to Withdraw and the attached cover sheet that was sent to the CourtOn 5/30/Mr*** re-filed his Motion to Withdraw with clarification that he is a licensed attorney in good standing with the State of ColoradoA copy was sent to Mr*** as well
On 6/3/Mr*** sent a message to Mr***'s office requesting a refund of the $in attorney fees Mr*** paid on 2/26/2014, based on Mr***'s erroneous belief that Mr*** is not licensed in Colorado:
"The attorney that was appointed to me was not authorized to practice law in ColoradoAm I getting a refund for the I paid for representation? Driver Legal Plan did not comply with the terms if our contract and would like to be reimbursed."
This refund request was considered by Mr*** with input from other employees also familiar with the case, and the decision was made on 6/11/not to refund Mr***'s $attorney fees due to the substantial effort exhausted by the office in representing him and the voluntary nature of Mr***'s final decision to plea guilty as chargedMr*** has since sent more messages harassing Mr***'s office and threatening to file complaints with numerous entities
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/10/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This does not substantiate the grounds Mr*** was not authorized to practice law by failing to enter the case pro hac vice and was not legally authorized to practice law as my attorneyHe had also told me that if I did not accept a deal they would amend chargesHe was forcing a contract by way of coercionThis attorney did not fulfill his contract and refused to go to trial for this caseI also faxed a copy of the plea deal to himEither way you look at it he did all these activities during a time he was not authorized to practice law as an attorney due to his negligence of failing to enter pro hac viceI feel a refund is appropriateRegardless of what illegal activi9ties were performed by his law firm
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/10/29) */
Mr*** is alleging Mr***'s office was not authorized to practice law in Colorado by failing to enter an appearance on the case via a Pro Hac Vice (C.R.C.PRule 205.3) motionMr*** misunderstands the purpose of a Pro Hac Vice motion, which is irrelevant in this context because *** C*** is a licensed Colorado attorney and has been since 1/22/2002, as we stated in our initial responsePlease see the attached printout from the Colorado Supreme Court website listing Mr***'s Colorado attorney information, which was attached to our second Motion to Withdraw after Judge *** ** *** denied our first motion based on her erroneous conclusion that Mr*** is not a Colorado attorneyWhile Mr***'s place of business is based in Oklahoma, this does not preclude him from being licensed to practice law in ColoradoIn fact, Mr*** is licensed to practice law as an attorney in Oklahoma, Colorado, and several other states
Mr*** further alleges he was told that if he did not accept a plea deal the court would amend the chargesWhile this is not completely inaccurate, Mr*** is misrepresenting what he was toldMr*** was told on 5/6/that if he were to proceed to trial it is possible that the State could move to amend the charge to a more serious charge of Leaving the Scene of an AccidentThis is based on a statement made by District Attorney *** *** earlier that same day in which he told our office that the officer at the scene "cut him a break" by charging him with Careless Driving and not Leaving the Scene of an AccidentIt is a common practice of prosecuting attorneys in traffic matters to amend a charge before trial when they believe the evidence would support a more serious charge and the officer had cited the Defendant for a charge that would have less of an impact on the driver's record
Mr*** goes on to allege that Mr*** was "forcing a contract by coercion" and refused to go to trialBoth of these allegations are patently falseMr*** was informed of his right to trial as well as the potential results of taking the matter to trialHe was advised that his attorneys were of the professional opinion that success at trial would be unlikely, but trial was an option available to himMr*** was given accurate information about his options and was completely free to resolve his case however he sought fit, as evidenced by his decision to enter a plea of guilty to the original charge against his attorneys' advice
It is true that Mr*** faxed a copy of the completed plea deal paperwork to Mr***'s officeThis fax was sent on 5/27/14, fourteen days after Mr***'s plea of guilty to the original charge was filed with the court pursuant to his instructions, and twelve days after Mr*** filed his motion to withdraw from the caseMr*** was informed by Mr***'s office on 5/27/that the court was not now obliged to accept the plea to the amended charge and that Mr***'s office had withdrawn from representing him further
Mr***'s assertion that Mr*** was not a licensed Colorado attorney is utterly untrue, and Mr*** is invited to contact the Supreme Court of Colorado if he wishes to further verify Mr***'s good standingMr***'s allegation of illegal activities committed by Mr***'s firm is also completely unsupported, patently false, and an attempt to discredit this law firm's reputationMr***'s engagement of the Law Office of *** *** for legal services in handling this matter was satisfied when Mr***'s office saw the case through to completion by entering Mr***'s voluntary plea of guilty as instructed by Mr*** himselfAt no point did this law firm take ANY action that breached the ethical obligation an attorney has to his client
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted] I have read the...
response. As mentenioned I'm waiting to appear in Court on Oct 26 2016 at 10:00 I also sent an email to Mr. Sedgewick, informing him on my position in the matter, and he is suppose to meet me there at Court. I'll let you know of the outcome. I'd like to know when this Law was adopted that because I have a CDL I don't qualify for Diversion.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/10/16) */
On 2/26/2014, *** ** *** paid $to retain Driver's Legal Plan, which also operates as the Law Office of *** ** ***, to represent him for a "Careless Driving" charge in Garfield County, Colorado*** *** has been licensed to
practice law as an attorney in the State of Colorado since 1/22/and was in good standing with the Colorado State Bar throughout his representation of Mr***Mr*** entered an appearance as Mr***'s attorney and began the process of negotiating a plea deal to reduce Mr***'s chargesMr*** and his employees did extensive work with the court in representing Mr***, which involved phone calls, faxed documents, and emails between Mr***'s office and the courtThe plea negotiation also involved phone call and emails between Mr***'s office and Mr***'s former employer to verify insurance coverage for the accident involved as a precondition to the District Attorney offering Mr*** a plea deal
As a result of the efforts of Mr*** and his employees, the prosecutor offered to reduce Mr***'s charge of "Careless Driving" to a lesser charge of "Defective Vehicle"Mr*** was informed of the plea deal and decided not to accept itDistrict Attorney *** *** was surprised Mr*** did not want to accept the plea deal and requested Mr***'s office have Mr*** review the police report, which was sent to Mr*** on 5/7/
Between May and May 16th, 2014, Mr*** sent a string of increasingly irrational and hostile messages to Mr***'s officeIncluded among Mr***'s messages were requests that we enter a plea of guilty on his behalf to the original charge of "Careless Driving", as excerpted below:
5/10/2014: "I would much rather take the careless over the plea deal"
5/10/2014: "Have my name affixed on the careless driving"
5/11/2014: "I would like to withdraw my NOT GUILTY plea and enter in a plea if GUILTY in the CARELESS DRIVINGI'm consenting to have my name affixed to anything that needs signed*** D ***."
5/11/2014: "Enter in that careless and get it all transferred through the compactI won't be driving anymore anywaysI'm going to get my medical card and fish, pan gold, go out on the boat and jet ski instead"
Mr***'s office informed Mr*** on 5/12/that we would enter the guilty plea as requestedMr*** was informed on 5/13/that he now owes fines and court costs to the court totaling $238.50, due by 5/29/2014, which Mr***'s office offered to facilitate with the courtOn May 14th Mr*** emailed instructions for Mr***'s office to charge his credit card for the fines due to the courtThe card was declinedMr*** was informed of this via email by attorney *** *** of Mr***'s officeMr***'s response of May 15th at 7:37am was thus:
"i made it back just in time to play a game with BVCTHEY PULLED A GUN ON ME so now I either have to kill them or get shot when I see them because ill be their ***there is a hour suspense Ill leave them in starting nowJust wanted to keep you up to date with the transitionhey also confiscated te CDLLOVE YUHH GUYS!!!1"
It is at this point Mr*** and his employees made the decision to withdraw from representing Mr*** any further in this matterMr*** was notified of this on 5/15/and a motion to withdraw was filed with the court that same dayMr*** sent one final message in response:
"Im under my lawHeres the rulesany =body entering my premises and whatever they have consentually agrees everything of theirs is mine until they have enough power to take it then everything becomes theirsI dont ned licenses but thanks."
On 5/29/Mr***'s office was informed by the court that Judge *** ** *** has denied our motion to withdraw on the ground that Mr*** is not a licensed Colorado attorneyIt is not known how the Judge came to that determination, as Mr***'s Colorado Attorney Number was listed on both the Motion to Withdraw and the attached cover sheet that was sent to the CourtOn 5/30/Mr*** re-filed his Motion to Withdraw with clarification that he is a licensed attorney in good standing with the State of ColoradoA copy was sent to Mr*** as well
On 6/3/Mr*** sent a message to Mr***'s office requesting a refund of the $in attorney fees Mr*** paid on 2/26/2014, based on Mr***'s erroneous belief that Mr*** is not licensed in Colorado:
"The attorney that was appointed to me was not authorized to practice law in ColoradoAm I getting a refund for the I paid for representation? Driver Legal Plan did not comply with the terms if our contract and would like to be reimbursed."
This refund request was considered by Mr*** with input from other employees also familiar with the case, and the decision was made on 6/11/not to refund Mr***'s $attorney fees due to the substantial effort exhausted by the office in representing him and the voluntary nature of Mr***'s final decision to plea guilty as chargedMr*** has since sent more messages harassing Mr***'s office and threatening to file complaints with numerous entities
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/10/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This does not substantiate the grounds Mr*** was not authorized to practice law by failing to enter the case pro hac vice and was not legally authorized to practice law as my attorneyHe had also told me that if I did not accept a deal they would amend chargesHe was forcing a contract by way of coercionThis attorney did not fulfill his contract and refused to go to trial for this caseI also faxed a copy of the plea deal to himEither way you look at it he did all these activities during a time he was not authorized to practice law as an attorney due to his negligence of failing to enter pro hac viceI feel a refund is appropriateRegardless of what illegal activi9ties were performed by his law firm
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/10/29) */
Mr*** is alleging Mr***'s office was not authorized to practice law in Colorado by failing to enter an appearance on the case via a Pro Hac Vice (C.R.C.PRule 205.3) motionMr*** misunderstands the purpose of a Pro Hac Vice motion, which is irrelevant in this context because *** C*** is a licensed Colorado attorney and has been since 1/22/2002, as we stated in our initial responsePlease see the attached printout from the Colorado Supreme Court website listing Mr***'s Colorado attorney information, which was attached to our second Motion to Withdraw after Judge *** ** *** denied our first motion based on her erroneous conclusion that Mr*** is not a Colorado attorneyWhile Mr***'s place of business is based in Oklahoma, this does not preclude him from being licensed to practice law in ColoradoIn fact, Mr*** is licensed to practice law as an attorney in Oklahoma, Colorado, and several other states
Mr*** further alleges he was told that if he did not accept a plea deal the court would amend the chargesWhile this is not completely inaccurate, Mr*** is misrepresenting what he was toldMr*** was told on 5/6/that if he were to proceed to trial it is possible that the State could move to amend the charge to a more serious charge of Leaving the Scene of an AccidentThis is based on a statement made by District Attorney *** *** earlier that same day in which he told our office that the officer at the scene "cut him a break" by charging him with Careless Driving and not Leaving the Scene of an AccidentIt is a common practice of prosecuting attorneys in traffic matters to amend a charge before trial when they believe the evidence would support a more serious charge and the officer had cited the Defendant for a charge that would have less of an impact on the driver's record
Mr*** goes on to allege that Mr*** was "forcing a contract by coercion" and refused to go to trialBoth of these allegations are patently falseMr*** was informed of his right to trial as well as the potential results of taking the matter to trialHe was advised that his attorneys were of the professional opinion that success at trial would be unlikely, but trial was an option available to himMr*** was given accurate information about his options and was completely free to resolve his case however he sought fit, as evidenced by his decision to enter a plea of guilty to the original charge against his attorneys' advice
It is true that Mr*** faxed a copy of the completed plea deal paperwork to Mr***'s officeThis fax was sent on 5/27/14, fourteen days after Mr***'s plea of guilty to the original charge was filed with the court pursuant to his instructions, and twelve days after Mr*** filed his motion to withdraw from the caseMr*** was informed by Mr***'s office on 5/27/that the court was not now obliged to accept the plea to the amended charge and that Mr***'s office had withdrawn from representing him further
Mr***'s assertion that Mr*** was not a licensed Colorado attorney is utterly untrue, and Mr*** is invited to contact the Supreme Court of Colorado if he wishes to further verify Mr***'s good standingMr***'s allegation of illegal activities committed by Mr***'s firm is also completely unsupported, patently false, and an attempt to discredit this law firm's reputationMr***'s engagement of the Law Office of *** *** for legal services in handling this matter was satisfied when Mr***'s office saw the case through to completion by entering Mr***'s voluntary plea of guilty as instructed by Mr*** himselfAt no point did this law firm take ANY action that breached the ethical obligation an attorney has to his client
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted] I have read the...
response. As mentenioned I'm waiting to appear in Court on Oct 26 2016 at 10:00 I also sent an email to Mr. Sedgewick, informing him on my position in the matter, and he is suppose to meet me there at Court. I'll let you know of the outcome. I'd like to know when this Law was adopted that because I have a CDL I don't qualify for Diversion.
Please see the attached response for the original complaint. Thank you.