Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
People v. Titus Dutton Peterson
Titus Peterson represented a pregnant client in a personal injury suit arising from the client’s fall in a local store. They signed a contingency fee agreement, and the client agreed to settle the case. Peterson and the client also discussed the possibility of representing the client’s newborn son; Peterson eventually sent the defendant’s insurer a demand letter on the son’s behalf, even though Peterson never entered into a separate fee agreement to represent the son.
During the representation, Peterson sent the client settlement correspondence from an entirely unrelated matter. Later, Peterson sent the client a letter encouraging her to seek opinions from other counsel. While the letter didn’t explicitly terminate the attorney-client relationship, both Peterson and the client understood the letter to do so. But Peterson didn’t notify the defendant’s insurance agent about the termination, and the agent refused to speak to the client.
When Peterson sent disciplinary authorities information about his trust account during the investigation of the matter, he failed to redact checks and information regarding other clients. In another client matter, Peterson represented a landlord in an eviction matter, but he didn’t give the client a fee agreement. Peterson hasn’t been able to produce an accounting of the client’s payments or any trust account reconciliation records from the period of the representation. The client ultimately terminated the attorney-client relationship.
Disciplinary authorities also received an insufficient funds notice in November 2023 regarding Peterson’s trust account. Peterson blamed his bank for inaccurately reporting to him how much money he held in his trust account. Disciplinary authorities asked Peterson for his internal accounting records, checks and reconciliations from the relevant timeframe, but Peterson refused to provide them, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Finally, during the disciplinary investigation of these matters, Peterson copied a lawyer for disciplinary authorities on an email chain with a client; the emails were entirely unrelated to the matters under investigation and revealed information related to the representation of that client.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved Peterson’s stipulation to discipline and suspended him for six months, with the added requirement Peterson petition for reinstatement and prove by clear and convincing evidence he has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules and is fit to practice law. Peterson’s suspension takes effect June 26.