People v. Nichols.
No. 26PDJ5. 1/27/2026. Stipulation to Discipline.
March 1, 2026
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Ashley M. Nichols (attorney registration number 39120) for 30 months. To be reinstated to the practice of law, Nichols 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. Nichols’s suspension took effect on January 27, 2026.
In one client matter, Nichols filed a complaint on behalf of a homeowners association (HOA) to recover monthly assessments and related costs. She took no further action, and the court closed the file. The defendant in that matter called Nichols several times, but she did not return his calls.
In a separate matter, Nichols filed a complaint on behalf of an HOA against several defendants. The court entered default against one defendant based on Nichols’s representation that the defendant had not answered the complaint. But the court later questioned whether the defendant had in fact timely filed a response. The court set an in-person case management conference in which it noted that the defendant had expressed difficulty communicating with Nichols, and it warned that failure to appear could result in entry of judgment against the absent party. Nichols failed to appear for the conference, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice. The HOA’s subsequent counsel moved to set aside the dismissal, arguing that emails to Nichols bounced back as undeliverable and that Nichols failed to open four court notifications in the case. The court denied the motion to set aside the dismissal.
In a third matter, Nichols filed a complaint on behalf of an HOA to recover monthly assessments and related costs. The defendants agreed to a payment plan under which Nichols was to process the payments through her trust account and remit those payments to the HOA. Twelve payments were submitted to Nichols’s law firm. The HOA received the funds from only five of those checks, however. The other seven checks were processed into Nichols’s trust account but were not remitted to the HOA or credited to the defendant’s account. In total, the defendants paid Nichols $3,509.30, but she remitted only $1,617.20 to the HOA, leaving a balance due of $1,892.10. Later, her trust account dipped below that balance such that she could not at that point tender to the HOA the $1,892.10 belonging to it. Nichols eventually remitted the missing funds to the HOA.
Through the conduct described above, Nichols violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(b) (a lawyer must explain a matter so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation); Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) (a lawyer must hold client property separate from the lawyer’s own property); Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (a lawyer must protect a client’s interests upon termination of the representation, including by giving reasonable notice to the client and returning unearned funds); Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).