People v. Andrew Dollard Thompson. 19PDJ043. July 15, 2019. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ amended conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Andrew Dollard Thompson (attorney registration number 39300) for six months, all stayed upon the successful completion of a two-year period of probation. The probation took effect July 15, 2019.
Thompson represented a plaintiff in a personal injury case. In December 2017, Thompson was ordered to (1) file a notice of trial and pretrial status conference, (2) give the defendant, within twenty-one days, a computation of damages, lost wages, and employment records, and (3) provide the home address of the plaintiff that same day. Thompson did not comply with these orders.
In February 2018, Thompson failed to appear at a status conference that had been set to address his client’s noncompliance with the December 2017 order. The court awarded attorney’s fees against the client as a sanction for failure to disclose. Thompson personally paid this sanction.
Between March 2018 and June 2018, the court held two more status conferences to address lack of disclosure. The court entered another award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for Thompson’s and his client’s failure to disclose required information.
In July 2018, the court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute based on the lack of disclosure. The statute of limitations expired in 2017, so the case probably cannot be refiled. After dismissing the case, the court entered a third award of attorney’s fees against Thompson’s client as a sanction, admonishing both Thompson and his client.
Through this conduct, Thompson violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 3.2 (a lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.