Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
People v. Beverly W. Oserow Rhodes
In September 2020, Beverly Oserow Rhodes agreed to help a client file change-of-status forms in the client’s immigration case. She charged $3,200 as a flat fee, including $1,170 for filing fees, and she placed the funds in her trust account. But her fee agreement did not contain benchmarks indicating whether she would earn fees before completing the representation.
Beginning Sept. 14, 2020, she began treating the money as earned after sending one of the forms for her client’s review. Though Oserow Rhodes believed she filed the forms with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services late that September, USCIS had no record of the filing, and she had no proof of mailing the forms. By the end of 2020, she learned that USCIS had not received her client’s forms. She did not alert her client, however, and in fact had not responded to his communications since September 2020. In April 2021, Oserow Rhodes finally contacted her client and asked whether he wanted her to refile the forms. He agreed. But she never submitted the paperwork or told him that she did not do so, and she stopped responding to his communications after late May 2021. By that time, her trust account was overdrawn, according to the opinion.
When the client obtained new counsel, Oserow Rhodes did not comply with his request for his file. She refunded his filing fees after the disciplinary complaint against her was filed.
In another immigration matter, two clients hired Oserow Rhodes to renew their work permits. In October 2021, the clients gave her the required documents to file the forms and $1,790, which covered her legal services and filing fees. Oserow Rhodes deposited the funds into her trust account. By February 2022, her trust account balance had dropped to $263.39. But she had not filed the forms nor responded to her clients’ communications over the previous two months.
Early that February, the clients completed the forms without Oserow Rhodes’s help and filed them with USCIS. But around that time, Oserow Rhodes also submitted the same forms to USCIS on her clients’ behalf. She notified her clients, who requested a refund. She also told them she would withdraw the paperwork she had filed. But she never did so, and in June 2023, she informed her clients that she had received their new work cards. The clients again requested a refund. Though Oserow Rhodes agreed to return their full fee, she refunded only $500.
The presiding disciplinary judge approved Oserow Rhodes’s amended stipulation to discipline and suspended her for one year and one day. To be reinstated, Oserow Rhodes must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules and is fit to practice law. The suspension takes effect Jan. 16, 2025.
In July 2023, a client consulted with Juliet Piccone after paying a $250 consultation fee. The client retained Piccone, who drafted and e-filed a verified complaint. The client then paid Piccone a $2,500 retainer.
Several days later, the court’s e-filing system emailed Piccone a notice stating that the documents she filed were rejected. Piccone did not realize this notice had been sent to her. In the last two weeks of July 2023, the client called Piccone several times, leaving messages. When Piccone did not respond, the client filed a pro se complaint. Although Piccone did not follow through with the representation and had not earned the retainer, Piccone knowingly spent the retainer for her personal use. Piccone did not respond to disciplinary authorities’ communications. In March 2024, Piccone refunded the full retainer.
In another matter, a prospective client booked a virtual consultation with Piccone and, using his credit card, paid the consultation fee. Piccone did not appear for the scheduled consultation and did not respond to the individual’s communication attempts. The individual requested a refund; after disputing the charge with his credit card company, he received a reversal of payment.
In a final case, a couple paid Piccone a $3,000 retainer to defend them against a civil lawsuit. After some delay, Piccone filed an answer and counterclaim for them in April 2023. The clients did not hear from Piccone thereafter, and she did not respond to opposing counsel or court filings. Piccone failed to account for how or when she earned the clients’ funds.
In October 2023, the court entered default against the clients. Later, the clients saw that the case was set for a status hearing; after they unsuccessfully attempted to contact Piccone, they retained new counsel. Meanwhile, the court entered judgment and an order for possession, and sheriffs took possession from the clients of three dogs subject to the order. The clients’ new counsel successfully moved to set aside the default judgment based in part on several meritorious defenses Piccone pleaded in the answer. After additional litigation, the court ordered return of the dogs to the clients. A trial is set for January 2025. Piccone refunded the retainer in 2024.
The presiding disciplinary judge approved Piccone’s stipulation to discipline and suspended her for three years, effective Dec. 12. The sanction took into account significant mitigation. To be reinstated, Piccone must prove by clear and convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules and is fit to practice law.