Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
People v. Douglas Cannon Fogler
Douglas Fogler worked at a private law firm in 2023, and the firm paid his attorney registration dues for that year. He left that firm around June 2023 and didn’t work between June 2023 and February 2024. During that period, Fogler neglected to pay his 2024 attorney registration dues. Consequently, he was placed on administrative suspension.
From February 2024 to August 2024, Fogler worked as an associate lawyer at a two-person law firm in Denver. On June 12, 2024, Fogler’s spouse had a court appearance for a traffic ticket. Fogler entered his appearance and stated that he was the defendant’s lawyer and spouse. The judge then asked about Fogler’s suspension. Fogler responded that he was not sure about the suspension and that he had to look into it.
Though Fogler was aware of his obligation to pay his attorney registration dues, he denied knowing of his suspension before the court informed him of it on June 12, 2024. In the weeks that followed, Fogler paid his attorney registration dues and was reinstated on July 9, 2024. In June and July 2024, however, Fogler continued working on approximately a dozen other client matters, including after June 12, 2024, and before he was reinstated on July 9, 2024.
Although Fogler didn’t appear in court with any of these clients, he maintained an attorney-client relationship and performed legal work for them. According to the court opinion, he didn’t tell his clients or the lawyer he worked with about his suspension, even after June 12, 2024.
The presiding disciplinary judge approved Fogler’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him from the practice of law for six months, all to be stayed pending his successful completion of a two-year, conditional probation. Fogler’s probation takes effect March 21, 2025.
People v. Cameron Joseph Baker
In December 2022, Cameron Baker agreed to represent a client in a felony case for $3,000. Baker continued the case multiple times, then failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. In July 2023, the client fired Baker and demanded he return any unearned funds. But Baker hadn’t kept records of the client’s payments and couldn’t determine how much his client had paid him.
In another client’s matter, Baker failed to comply with orders to schedule mediation and to file a joint trial management certificate in the client’s dissolution of marriage case. Nor did Baker inform his client of those orders. The parties didn’t file a mediation certificate, and the trial court vacated the permanent orders hearing set for June 2023.
Meanwhile, Baker moved for a contempt order against the opposing party. Baker read the notice of the contempt hearing but didn’t respond to his client’s inquiries about the hearing. Baker and his client failed to appear at the hearing, and the court dismissed the contempt motion.
Later, in August 2023, the court ordered Baker to confer with the opposing party to reset the permanent orders hearing. Baker didn’t comply because he didn’t read the order. Nor did he read an order requiring a status conference or a notice of the status conference. Neither Baker nor his client appeared at the status conference, prompting the court to order Baker to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. In January 2024, the client successfully moved to withdraw Baker from the case after pro se moving for contempt against the opposing party.
In a third matter, Baker agreed to represent a client in a felony case for a $3,000 flat fee. Baker never provided a written fee agreement to the client or her mother, who first contacted him about the matter. Nor did he describe in writing how he would earn portions of the fee. In December 2023, the client’s mother paid Baker $1,000 via a payment app. Baker didn’t deposit the funds into a trust account but kept them in his account on the app.
He never entered his appearance in the client’s case, falsely telling the client that he sought to continue the next date in January 2024 and that the date had been moved to the next month. When the client received notice of the January appearance date, Baker advised her to tell the court that she had just hired counsel and to request a new date. In late January 2024, the client’s mother demanded a refund. Baker didn’t respond to her request, and she renewed her demand two days later. Baker promised to refund the money within a week but didn’t do so until almost three months later.
The presiding disciplinary judge approved Baker’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him from the practice of law for one year and one day, all to be stayed pending Baker’s successful completion of a two-year, conditional probation. Baker’s stipulation reflected mitigating factors. The probation takes effect March 21, 2025.