Petition for Injunction

8/6/2019 Petition for Injunction

1/9

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 800 FILED IN THEDenver, Colorado 80202 SUPREME COURTORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MAY 232011UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW, OF THE STATE OF COLORADO1 OUPLO58 Christopher T. Ryan, ClerkPetitioner:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF A COURT USE ONLY ACOLORADO Case Number:

11SA154Respondent:DOUGLAS BRUCEKim E. Ikeler, #15590Assistant Regulation CounselAttorney for Petitioner1560 Broadway, Suite 1800Denver, CO 80202Phone Number: (303) 866-6400Fax Number: (303) 893-5302Email: k.ikelexJcsc . state. co .US

PETITION FOR INJUNCTIONPetitioner, through the undersigned Assistant Regulation

Counsel, and upon authorization pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234(a),lrespectfully requests that the Colorado Supreme Court issue anorder pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234 directing the Respondent to show

The Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Committee au thorized the filing ofthis Petition on May 13, 2011.


2/9

cause why he should not be enjoined from the unauthorizedpractice of law. As grounds therefor, counsel states as follows:

Jurisdiction1. The Respondent, Douglas Bruce, is not licensed to practice

law in the state of Colorado.2. Respondent Bruce is an inactive California attorney.3. Respondents last known address is P.O. Box 26018,

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80936.4. Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, as

described below.Factual Allegations

5. Respondent Bruce filed an action against the City ofColorado Springs, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief regardingapproval of language for a ballot initiative. Douglas Bruce v. City ofColorado Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No.10CV260. The case was assigned to Judge David Gilbert, whodenied the requested relief on June 18, 2010.

6. On July 29, 2010, Respondent Bruce filed an almostidentical complaint, again in El Paso County District Court. The

2


3/9

case was assigned to Judge Theresa Cisneros. She entered anorder in open court dismissing the case. Judge Cisneros minuteorder stated as follows:

8/9 /10: CISNEROS: CMD: NETWORK 1:50 PM HEAR: TFPRO SE; ATIY WHITE FOR DEF; HEARING REGARDINGPTFS COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORYRELIEF; ATTY WHITE MOVES TO DISMISS THE CASEBECAUSE PTF FILED THE EXACT COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.10CV260 IN DIVISION 7. ARGUMENTS; COURT GRANTSCITYS MOTION TO DISMISS. PTFS REMEDY WAS TOAPPEAL JUDGE GILBERTS RULING, NOT TO FILE A NEWCASE. THIS CASE IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OFCOLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.JUDGE CISNEROS/TMC7. Respondent Bruce was present in court when Judge

Cisneros entered her order. Respondent stated words to the effectthat he was going to have other members of his political actioncommittee file similar lawsuits.

8. On August 12, 2010, Helen Collins, an ally of RespondentBruce, filed a complaint nearly identical to the complaints in theBruce actions. Helen Collins u. City of Colorado Springs, El PasoCounty District Court, Case No. 10CV343 (the Collins case). Thecase was assigned to Judge David Miller.

9. On the same day, August 12, 2010, Douglas Stinehagen,another ally of Respondent Bruce, filed a complaint nearly identical

3


4/9

to the complaint in the Collins case. Douglas Stinehagen v. City ofColorado Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No. 10CV344(the Stinehagen case). The case was assigned to Judge RonaldCrowder.

10. On August 20, 2010, Judge Crowder held a statusconference in the Stinehagen case. The City Attorney brought thenearly identical complaint in the Collins case to Judge Crowdersattention. Upon seeing that the two complaints were essentiallyidentical, Judge Crowder asked Mr. Stinehagen: Who wrote yourcomplaint? Mr. Stinehagen answered: M r. Bruce.

11. The City Attorney moved for consolidation of the Collinscase and the Stinehagen case. Mr. Stinehagen objected. JudgeCrowder asked Mr. Stinehagen whether he wanted to file a brief onthe issue. From the audience, Respondent Bruce in a loud voiceanswered No.

12. The Collins case and the Stinehagen case wereconsolidated before Judge Miller. The City moved to dismiss theconsolidated cases. On August 25, 2010, Judge Miller held ahearing. Ms. Collins, Mr. Stinehagen and Respondent Bruce werepresent.

4


5/9

13. In answer to the Judges questions, Mr. Stinehagenadmitted that he did not have legal training and that he had notdrafted his complaint.

14. Ms. Collins asked for leave to have Respondent comeforward and address the Court on the question of whether hercomplaint raised the same issue as the complaints in the Bruceactions.

15. Judge Crowder declined to allow Respondent Bruce tomake legal argument.

16. Despite the Judges direction, Respondent began to speakThe Judge warned him: Mr. Bruce, you are not to be commentingon the case, unless you want to practice law without a license.

17. Respondent Bruce then began writing notes to Ms. Collinsand Mr. Stinehagen.

18. Mr. Stinehagen read from the notes to the Judge,distinguishing between the Bruce cases and his case.

19. The Judge took the notes and marked them as an Exhibit.20. The Judge made a record that Respondent had written

notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, trying to tell them what tosay.

5


6/9

21. Respondent Bruce offered to testify as an expert witness.22. The Judge asked Respondent whether he wished to be

joined in the consolidated cases.a.) Respondent Bruce then spoke at length, including

concerning the supposed differences between the Bmce casebefore Judge Gilbert and the consolidated Collins andStinehagen cases.b.) Respondent Bruce argued that Article XX, 9 of the

Constitution applied to the injunctive and declaratory reliefrequested by Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, rather thanArticle XX, 6, as Judge Gilbert had ruled.

c.) Respondent Bruce argued that the City Charter,state statutes and the Constitution supported the reliefrequested in the Collins and Stinehagen complaints.

23. Respondent Bruce then addressed the question ofcollateral estoppel.

a.) Respondent argued that he was not in privity withMs. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen. As a result, their caseswere not barred by collateral estoppel based in JudgeGilberts dismissal of the first Bruce case.

6


7/9


8/9

prohibited involve the lay exercise of legal discretion, such as adviceto clients regarding legal matters, preparation of court pleadingsand appearance in court. People v. Adams, 243 P.3d 256, 266(Cob. 2010).

26. Respondent Bruce an unlicensed person engaged inthe unauthorized practice of law by drafting Complaints to be filedby Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen in their own names.

27. Respondent Bruce further engaged in the unauthorizedpractice of law by making legal argument to Judge Miller at theAugust 25, 2010 hearing, in opposition to the motion of the City todismiss the Collins and Stinehagen cases on grounds of collateralestoppels, and by passing notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagendirecting them what argument to make.

28. The Respondent does not fall within any of the statutoryor case law exceptions.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this court issue anorder directing the Respondent to show cause why the Respondentshould not be enjoined from engaging in any unauthorized practiceof law; thereafter that the court enjoin this Respondent from thepractice of law, or in the alternative that this court refer this matter

8


9/9

to a hearing master for determination of facts andrecommendations to the court on whether this Respondent shouldbe enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore,Petitioner requests that the court impose a fine for each incident ofunauthorized practice of law, not less than $250.00 and not morethan $1,000.00; award costs to the Petitioner, and any other reliefdeemed appropriate by this court.

Respectfully submitted this of May 2011.

KimAssistant Regulation CounselAttorney for Petitioner

Documents

Petition for Injunction