![In The Courts](https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LWC_In-The-Courts_Placeholder-scaled.jpg)
![In The Courts](https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/LWC_In-The-Courts_Placeholder-scaled.jpg)
Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
According to a disciplinary opinion, following a remedial contempt hearing held in February 2021 in her client’s domestic relations case, Heather Tice didn’t timely file a proposed order or affidavit for attorney’s fees with the court presiding over the matter. In September 2021, the court entered the order Tice had proposed, directing Tice to file her affidavit for attorney’s fees within 10 days of the order’s date. Tice didn’t do so, nor did she send a copy of the order to her client until Dec. 1, 2021, when her client inquired about the matter.
That same day, Tice’s client also asked about the affidavit for attorney’s fees and requested a copy of what Tice filed. Tice’s client again inquired about the affidavit five days later, having received no response from Tice. Tice eventually filed an affidavit for attorney’s fees in the amount of $51,566 on Dec. 10, 2021. When her client expressed concern over the affidavit’s timeliness, Tice assured her client there was no deadline for an affidavit for attorney’s fees. Tice didn’t discuss her mistake with her client or how it might affect the client’s ability to collect fees from the opposing party.
In January 2022, the court issued an order noting that Tice filed the affidavit 11 weeks late without any requests for extensions. Tice didn’t discuss the order’s significance with her client but moved to reconsider the order with the district court. The district court denied the motion to reconsider. Again, Tice didn’t discuss the significance of that order with her client. In May 2022, the client learned through communications with the opposing party that the orders from January 2022 and February 2022 amounted to denials of her request for attorney’s fees. When the client confronted Tice with this information, Tice misrepresented that she had requested an extension to file the affidavit with the court. Tice’s client requested communications related to that issue, but Tice didn’t provide all the communications.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Tice’s stipulation to discipline and suspended her for one year and one day, with three months served and the remainder stayed upon Tice’s successful completion of a two-year conditional probation, effective Aug. 6.