excerpted text from Mann v. Gleason, et al.
note: ** "Ms.
Mann has requested that the entirety of her Complaint
not be posted here publicly, because of family privacy
concerns. The regulation-counsel-specific allegations
are reproduced here verbatim."
145. Sometime in mid-January
2005, Mann began attempting to file with the Colorado
Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel a
complaint of misconduct against Lorimer. The procedural
rules of that office bar complainants from submitting a
complaint in writing. The procedure requires that all
complaints be initiated via phone conversation with a
non-attorney “intake” staff member. In January and
February 2005, there was only one such staff member, a
woman named Carla McCoy. Mann detailed her complaint to
McCoy, who said that the information would be forwarded
to a staff attorney, who then would schedule a phone
conference with Mann.
146. A few days later, McCoy phoned Mann and said that
the matter was assigned to a staff attorney named Louise
Culberson-Smith, who had asked that McCoy phone Mann to
schedule a phone conference. A time was set for a phone
conference the next week.
147. A day or two before the scheduled phone conference,
McCoy phoned Mann and told her that Culberson-Smith had
rejected the claim and was canceling the scheduled phone
conference. McCoy then read a lengthy pro forma script
that, among other things, explained the difference
between a criminal case and the duties and obligations
of the Office of the Attorney Regulatory Counsel, and
that the Office of the Attorney Regulatory Counsel “only
enforces the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct”.
148. McCoy’s oral statement also said that the Office of
the Attorney Regulatory Counsel only investigates claims
of fraud against an attorney if there is a court order
finding that the attorney committed fraud; only after
such a court order is obtained will the Office of the
Attorney Regulatory Counsel investigate the allegation,
thus that agency could not investigate Mann’s allegation
that Lorimer had obtained Joseph Mann’s signature on the
two November 4, 2004 Power of Attorney documents at a
time when he was, and when Lorimer knew he was,
insufficiently mentally competent to understand what he
was signing and to understand the implications of it.
149. McCoy’s oral statement also said that because the
Office of the Attorney Regulatory Counsel “only enforces
the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct,” the agency
could not pursue Mann’s claim that Lorimer had a
conflict of interest in representing King in the
guardianship and conservatorship matter less than a
month after Lorimer ostensibly represented Joseph Mann
in drafting the Power of Attorney documents, and in
having King use Joseph Mann’s funds to pay Lorimer’s
legal fees.
150. Mann questioned McCoy about whether she was stating
that the conduct Mann had alleged did not violate the
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct’s prohibition
against conflict of interest. McCoy, after simply
repeating several times that part of the statement also
said that the Office of the Attorney Regulatory Counsel
“only enforces the Colorado Rules of Professional
Conduct,” Mann finally extracted an answer to her
question. McCoy said Culberson-Smith had said it did
not.
151. Mann then phoned John S. Gleason, Attorney
Regulatory Counsel, and Nancy L. Cohen, Chief Deputy
Regulation Counsel, and left a lengthy voicemail message
for each asking whether it is accurate that that agency
does not pursue allegations of fraud against an attorney
unless first there is a court order finding that the
attorney had engaged in a fraudulent act, and asking
whether it is accurate that under the Colorado Rules of
Professional Conduct, Lorimer’s representation of Joseph
Mann on November 4, 2004 and her formal representation
of King beginning less than a month later did not
constitute a conflict of interest.
152. Mann received no response from Gleason. Cohen,
however, did respond; she had her secretary phone Mann
and say that Cohen had contacted Culberson-Smith, and
that if the latter did not further address Mann’s
concerns, Mann should send Cohen a letter detailing the
matter. Shortly afterward, Culberson-Smith had her
secretary phone Mann. She said Culberson-Smith would be
sending Mann a letter explaining why she and her agency
were rejecting Mann’s claim. The secretary also told
Mann that after she received and read the letter, Mann
should phone her and schedule a phone conference with
Culberson-Smith so that they could discuss the matter.
153. The letter that Culberson-Smith sent to Mann
reiterated much of the script that Carla McCoy earlier
had read to Mann over the phone. Culberson-Smith either
had spoken by phone earlier with Lorimer or sent Lorimer
a copy of the letter addressed to Mann.
154. Mann scheduled a phone conversation with
Culberson-Smith. She spoke with Culberson-Smith for
approximately 45-50 minutes and detailed her allegations
against Lorimer as she describes them above in this
Complaint. Repeatedly during that conversation—perhaps
six or seven times—Culberson-Smith said that “simply
because someone was [earlier] diagnosed with Alzheimer’s
Disease doesn’t mean that he was mentally incompetent
when he signed the Power of Attorney.”
155. Mann responded repeatedly during that conversation
that her claim was not that simply because her father
had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease, he was
mentally incompetent when he signed the Power of
Attorney. Mann stated repeatedly that her claim was that
her father, on November 4, 2004, the date on which he
signed the two Power of Attorney documents drafted and
notarized by Lorimer, was mentally incompetent and that
his medical and nursing home records from that very day
and from throughout that week indicate that.
156. Approximately 40 minutes into that phone
conversation, Mann finally obtained an acknowledgment
from Culberson-Smith that the latter understood that
Mann’s claim was that her father was mentally
incompetent on November 4, 2004 when he was signing the
two lengthy, complex Power of Attorney documents.
Culberson-Smith then told Mann that nonetheless, her
agency could not investigate Mann’s allegation that at
the time Joseph Mann signed those documents drafted and
notarized by Lorimer, he lacked the mental capacity to
sign legally valid documents. “Maybe—just maybe—he was
mentally competent when he was in [Lorimer’s] office”
signing the Power of Attorney documents, Culberson-Smith
said.
157. Culberson-Smith then told Mann that unless someone
who was present at the meeting in Lorimer’s office when
Joseph Mann signed the two documents attests that Joseph
Mann was mentally incompetent at the moment he signed
them, the Office of Attorney Regulation could not
investigate the matter.
158. Mann, incredulous, asked Culberson-Smith to clarify
that she was saying that unless someone who was part of
the alleged fraud attests that Joseph Mann indeed was
not mentally competent at the time he was induced to
sign those legal documents, the Office of Attorney
Regulation could not investigate the matter.
Culberson-Smith responded that she was saying that
unless someone who was present at that meeting attests
that Joseph Mann was not mentally competent at the time
that he signed those legal documents, there could not be
sufficient evidence that at the time he signed the
documents he was mentally incompetent to sign legal
documents. Culberson-Smith said that before phoning
Mann, she had verified this with Attorney Regulation
Counsel John Gleason.
159. During that phone conversation, Culberson-Smith
also told Mann that Lorimer had no conflict of interest
in formally representing King in the guardianship and
conservatorship matter beginning only four weeks after
Lorimer had drafted and notarized the two Power of
Attorney documents at King’s behest. Culberson-Smith
said this was because Lorimer, in drafting the documents
and obtaining Joseph Mann’s signature on them, was not
acting as Joseph Mann’s attorney but instead was acting
as King’s attorney; she said that unless Joseph Mann
signed a retainer agreement with Lorimer, Lorimer was
not acting as Joseph Mann’s attorney.
160. Mann responded to Culberson-Smith’s assertion by
saying that by law, it is the nature of the work done by
the attorney that controls whether or not the attorney
was acting as counsel and for whom. Cumberson-Smith
adamantly disputed this, but amended her assertion of
law by stating that if Joseph Mann had paid Lorimer’s
legal fees, then that would make Lorimer his attorney.
161. Mann reiterated that, irrespective of who paid her
fees, Lorimer was acting as Joseph Mann’s attorney by
drafting and presenting to him for his signature the two
Power of Attorney documents.
162. Mann also told Culberson-Smith that it was highly
probable that King had used Joseph Mann’s money rather
than her own to pay Lorimer’s fees.
163. Culberson-Smith then asked Mann whether she had any
documents verifying that Joseph Mann’s money was used to
pay Lorimer’s fees relating to the two Power of Attorney
documents. Mann said she did not, but asked that the
Office of Attorney Regulation request that Lorimer
provide that agency with documents showing whom was
billed and who paid the bills. Culberson-Smith responded
that her office “doesn’t do that,” and that only if Mann
produced documents showing that her father’s money was
used to pay Lorimer’s fees would Culberson-Smith’s
office investigate whether Lorimer engaged in conflict
of interest.
164. Mann replied that she (Mann) had no subpoena power
nor other power, on her own, to obtain the documents,
and asked Culberson-Smith to clarify that her agency
does not request documents of that type from attorneys.
Culberson-Smith said her office does not request
attorneys to produce such documents; she said it
investigates such claims only if the person lodging the
complaint provides the documents to her office. Mann
then asked whether that agency would request that
Lorimer disclose to it whether she had billed Joseph
Mann, and whose money was used to pay the legal fees.
Culberson-Smith said her agency doesn’t make such
requests. She also said that Mann could appeal the
decision to John Gleason by sending him a letter.
165. King used Joseph Mann’s funds to pay Lorimer’s
legal fees relating to the two Power of Attorney
documents on which King and Lorimer obtained Joseph
Mann’s signature on November 4, 2004 and which Lorimer
notarized.
166. On February 4, 2005, Lorimer filed a response to
Mann’s motion to compel Lorimer to withdraw as King’s
attorney. In her response, Lorimer stated that Mann had
filed a complaint against Lorimer with the Office of the
Attorney Regulation Counsel and that that the Attorney
Regulation Counsel had exonerated her.
Go to trial court
case docket
back to CARC Main page
