Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
In January 2020, Nathan Kennedy agreed to represent a client on a contingent-fee basis in a civil matter against the City of Aurora. But Kennedy did little to no work until July 2022, when he told the client his law license had been suspended and he could no longer work on the case, according to the disciplinary opinion.
During the representation, Kennedy didn’t make a settlement offer, as he told his client he would, and didn’t file a complaint for the client. Kennedy had minimal contact with the client, with whom he failed to consult about the pending case, despite the client and the client’s mother’s many efforts to communicate with him.
Kennedy represented a client on a contingent-fee basis in a civil action against several medical providers based on the client’s alleged injuries and complications from a total knee replacement. According to the disciplinary opinion, Kennedy filed a complaint without taking steps to obtain all necessary medical records or confer with experts in all relevant specialties.
In a later amended complaint, Kennedy submitted a certificate of review stating he consulted with experts who had concluded the complaint’s claims didn’t lack substantial justification; Kennedy filed this certificate even though he didn’t speak with any of the client’s treating doctors or experts before filing the amended complaint.
During the representation, Kennedy didn’t tell the client he amended the complaint twice; that the opposing parties moved to dismiss the complaint; that he stipulated to dismiss all claims against certain doctors; or that the defendants sought substantial attorney’s fees. Kennedy also didn’t provide the client any of the filings, according to the disciplinary opinion.
After the client asked questions and requested documents, Kennedy moved to withdraw. The presiding court later dismissed the case in its entirety because Kennedy had failed to obtain legitimate certificates of review by experts before filing the case. It awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the defendants.
In another case, Kennedy agreed to defend a company in a breach of contract action. According to the disciplinary opinion, Kennedy filed the answer without consulting with the company’s owner, asserting mandatory counterclaims or advising the owner about possible insurance coverage. Kennedy failed to prepare the owner for mediation; didn’t submit an initial disclosure statement; never consulted with the owner about disclosures; and never asked him to produce relevant documents.
Later, the respondent and the owner talked about the owner retaining different counsel. But Kennedy didn’t inform the owner of time-sensitive deadlines, including the expert disclosure deadline. Nor did Kennedy consult with or inform the owner about the plaintiff’s expert report or discuss a strategy or plan to defend against the claims. Kennedy then moved to withdraw without informing the owner of the withdrawal. According to the disciplinary opinion, Kennedy’s failure to assert mandatory counterclaims resulted in waiver of those claims.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Kennedy’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him for one year and one day. To be reinstated to the practice of law, Kennedy must prove by clear and convincing evidence he has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules and is fit to practice law. The suspension took effect Dec. 22, 2023.