People v. Edward Joseph Streker. 19PDJ063. August 21, 2019. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ conditional admission of misconduct and publicly censured Edward Joseph Streker (attorney registration number 38869), effective August 21, 2019. The sanction took into account an overwhelming number of mitigating conditions.
Streker entered into an arrangement with a company called “Want a Fresh Start,” which offered advertising and lead-generation services for bankruptcy matters. When a potential client responded to Fresh Start’s advertisements, the company would schedule a meeting between the potential client and Streker. Streker would then sign a fee agreement with any clients he accepted. Fresh Start required Streker to keep his legal fees very low, and the fees were to be paid directly to Streker. Fresh Start guaranteed Streker’s income stream up to $65,000.00 per year and promised to make up “short” months. Streker was obligated to pay the company a portion of any fees he collected in excess of $65,000.00 per year.
Fresh Start sent Streker many potential clients, and he was unable to keep up with the workload. His mental health worsened. He fell behind in the bankruptcy cases, failing to file required documents, to follow up with his clients to obtain required documents, and to comply with applicable court rules. The U.S. Trustee’s office investigated his practices. Streker cooperated with that office and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement requiring his disgorgement of fees and enjoining him from bankruptcy practice. Streker complied with the agreement and severed his ties with Fresh Start.
Through this conduct, Streker violated Colo. RPC 1.1 (a lawyer shall competently represent a client); Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(b) (a lawyer shall explain a matter so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation); and Colo. RPC 5.4(b) (a lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any of the partnership’s activities consist of the practice of law). He also attempted to violate Colo. RPC 5.4(a) (a lawyer shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.