People v. Stout.
No. 25PDJ30. 12/18/2025. Stipulation to Discipline.
February 1, 2026
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Stephanie Patricia Stout (attorney registration number 32309) for one year and one day. To be reinstated to the practice of law, Stout 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. The suspension takes effect on January 22, 2026.
In 2021, Stout agreed to pursue a client’s lawsuit but never provided the client with a written basis or rate for her fee. Stout entered her appearance in the case and requested 30 days to schedule required mediation. The court granted Stout’s motion. Stout never scheduled mediation, however, and the court dismissed the case because mediation had not been set. Stout did not inform her client of the order or that the case had been dismissed. Nor did she take steps to reopen the case, instead telling her client that she would file a new complaint. In December 2021, Stout assured her client that the new complaint was almost complete when in fact she had not drafted it. In January and February 2022, Stout thrice told her client that service of the new complaint had been attempted on the opposing party. These statements were false, as Stout never filed the complaint.
In another client matter, in October 2023, a client hired Stout to represent her in a domestic relations case. Stout received $500 for her work on the case but did not keep invoices or accounting records related to how she handled and earned the funds. On two occasions during the representation, Stout told her client that she filed motions in the case and that the court had rejected the motions when in fact she had not filed the motions. Stout also falsely told her client that the court rejected the filings because of mistakes made by Stout’s assistant.
In a third matter, a client hired Stout to represent him in a traffic case. Stout and her client did not appear for the pretrial conference, and the court entered a default judgment against the client. Stout did not inform her client that he was required to appear at the court date or that she would not appear. Nor did she notify the court that she would not appear. Though Stout had emailed the prosecutor’s office on the day of the conference, stating that she would not be present, nobody at the office responded to the email. After the court date, Stout did not inform her client about the default judgment and did not respond to his requests for information about the case. Nor did she file anything with the court to remedy the situation.
In a fourth matter, Stout failed to keep required financial records related to a client’s case showing how she handled the client’s money or earned her fee.
Through this conduct, Stout violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must competently represent a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3) and (4) (a lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and must promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Colo. RPC 1.5(b) (a lawyer must inform a client in writing about the lawyer’s fees and expenses within a reasonable time after being retained, if the lawyer has not regularly represented the client); Colo. RPC 1.15D(a)(1)(A) (a lawyer must maintain an appropriate record-keeping system to track funds or other property held for others, including appropriate trust account records); and Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).