Planning Partners Int’l, LLC v. QED, Inc., 2013CO43 (July 1, 2013)

“I’ve lived with this case since I’ve been here in January, and I am very much aware of the protracted convoluted history this cases possesses [sic]” – The Trial Court. Plaintiff (PPI) entered into an Agreement to provide services to Defendant (QED). PPI later loaned money to QED pursuant to a promissory note. The Note required QED to pay reasonable costs and fees that PPI might incur “in connection with the enforcement of” the promissory note. PPI later sued for breach of the note and QED counterclaimed for breach of the Agreement. They both win. The trial court awarded fees to PPI, but did not apportion them. The court of appeals held it should have. The Court disagreed, rejecting a rule requiring proportional diminishment of fees when the defendant recovers on a counterclaim. Rather, trial courts may apportion fees, but if the contract does not require apportionment, it need not do so.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SC961.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9012&courtid=2

In the Matter of Attorney F, 2012CO57 (September 10, 2012)

A momentary lapse of reason is not just a Pink Floyd album. In this case, during trial, a prosecutor allowed a witness to testify falsely that she did not have a meeting with the prosecutor during a break in her testimony. Later, when asked by defense counsel, the prosecutor did not reveal the meeting with the witness. Later, realizing the gravity of the situation, the prosecutor notified the court, which reported her to the disciplinary board. The board found that the prosecutor made a knowing misrepresentation in violation of C.R.P.C. 8.4. Although reluctant, the board felt compelled to impose a public sanction. The Court reversed, though not disagreeing with the discipline. Rather, the Court emphasized that the board has full discretion in all situations to impose the sanctions it believes are appropriate. The Court remanded to allow the board to exercise its full discretion.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA343.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8654&courtid=2