Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
People v. Joseph Ryan Riegerix
Beginning in October 2020, Joseph Riegerix and his employer represented two clients in a civil matter. In January 2021, the lawyer and opposing counsel set a five-day jury trial to begin Nov. 15, 2021. In February 2021, the lawyer withdrew from the case on the eve of the effective date of his suspension from the practice of law. The lawyer’s suspension prevented him from taking part in the trial until Nov. 17, 2021.
Though the clients requested information about the lawyer’s participation in the case during the intervening time, Riegerix didn’t tell them the lawyer had withdrawn from the matter or that the lawyer was suspended. During the weekend before the trial, the lawyer joined Riegerix to prepare for the matter, including preparing the clients for their testimony. On the second day of trial, the clients learned from the court that the lawyer was suspended. The lawyer entered his appearance the next day upon being reinstated to the practice of law and represented the clients for the remainder of the trial.
In another matter, Riegerix filed a complaint against various defendants on his client’s behalf in April 2021. Riegerix didn’t file proofs of service as to three of the defendants and didn’t pursue default as to a fourth, violating the court’s initial procedure order and delay reduction order. In February 2022, the court dismissed without prejudice the client’s claims as to those parties and ordered Riegerix’s client to set the matter for trial within seven days. Riegerix didn’t do so, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice on April 5, 2022. Riegerix didn’t tell his client about the dismissals despite the client’s requests for updates about the case.
The client didn’t learn about the dismissals until early June 2022, when he looked up the docket himself.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Riegerix’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him for six months, with the added requirements that Riegerix submit to an independent medical examination and that he petition for reinstatement and prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules and is fit to practice law. Riegerix’s suspension took effect on July 21.
This reciprocal discipline case arose out of discipline imposed on Mark Goldman in Arizona. On Sept. 18, 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court’s Presiding Disciplinary Judge entered an order suspending Goldman from the practice of law in Arizona for 30 days and requiring that Goldman be placed on a two-year conditional probation after he reinstates from the suspension.
Goldman’s Arizona discipline was premised on his misconduct in his clients’ federal matter, during which he failed to appear for a status conference and failed to comply or respond to the presiding magistrate judge’s orders, including an order to show cause why he shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for his conduct in the case. During the civil contempt proceeding that followed, Goldman failed to appear for the contempt hearing or explain his absence. The district court presiding over that matter issued a civil arrest warrant, and Goldman was arrested on the warrant and brought to the court a week later.
Goldman continued to disregard the court’s orders even after the court found him in contempt, including an order that he find new counsel for his clients’ matter.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge entered default, issued an opinion addressing the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline and suspended Goldman from the practice of law in Colorado for 30 days, with the requirement that Goldman comply with the conditions of probation in his discipline imposed in Arizona. Goldman’s suspension takes effect on Aug. 15.