People v. Abrams.
No. 23PDJ063 (consolidated with 24PDJ041). 11/14/2024. Stipulation to Discipline.
December 10, 2024
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Robert E. Abrams (attorney registration number 37950) for 18 months, with six months to be served and the remainder to be stayed upon Abrams’s successful completion of a two-year period of probation, with conditions. Abrams’s suspension was effective on December 19, 2024.
In September 2022, Abrams moved for default in an action for legal fees he brought against his former client. Abrams filed the motion even though the client’s lawyer informed Abrams multiple times by email that the process server did not properly serve the summons and complaint on the client. In at least two of those communications, the lawyer included a link to a video captured by the client’s doorbell camera showing that the process server did not effectuate service. Although the presiding court determined that the client had not been properly served, Abrams argued during trial in the case that service of process was effectuated by refusal.
In October 2022, while the case against his former client was pending, Abrams encountered the client at a Denver restaurant. During a verbal exchange, Abrams yelled, “I will take your f[**]king house.” Abrams knew that the client was represented in the case. He also knew that the client owned a home, the value of the property, and that the property was the client’s primary asset. Less than one week after the encounter, Abrams filed a writ of attachment in which he alleged that the client placed a second deed of trust under a home equity line of credit to bleed out equity in the property and thwart debtor collection.
In late 2022 or early 2023, Abrams posted comments online about his former client. In the comments, Abrams identified the client by name and disclosed the client’s profession. Abrams also stated that he was suing the client to recover money he alleged the client owed his law firm. In his comments, Abrams asserted that the client reported false information about him to disciplinary authorities, and he called the client “a liar and a crybaby.” Abrams also responded online to comments from another individual who consulted with his law firm about a matter, disclosing that his firm declined “to take her small case for free.”
Through this conduct, Abrams violated Colo. RPC 1.6(a) (a lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent); Colo. RPC 1.9(c) (a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter must not use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client); Colo. RPC 3.1 (a lawyer must not assert frivolous claims); and Colo. RPC 4.2 (restricting the circumstances in which a lawyer may communicate about the subject of a client representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by counsel in the matter).