Opinions

Decision Information

Decision Content

People v. George Robert Vahsholtz. 19PDJ033. July 29, 2019. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ conditional admission of misconduct and suspended George Robert Vahsholtz (attorney registration number 07179) for one year and one day. The suspension took effect July 29, 2019.

In late December 2017, Vahsholtz was arrested by police following an automobile accident. Later the same day, Vahsholtz’s blood alcohol content tested 0.197. Vahsholtz later entered a guilty plea for driving under the influence of alcohol with three priors, a class-four felony. In mid-January 2018, Vahsholtz was pulled over for speeding; a preliminary blood test revealed that his blood alcohol level was 0.247. He failed roadside maneuvers. Vahsholtz later pleaded guilty to a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. At the time of these two incidents, Vahsholtz was experiencing personal or emotional problems resulting from the recent death of his wife.

In February 2019, Vahsholtz was sentenced in both cases. In the first case, he was sentenced to four years of supervised probation, including monitored sobriety, 120 days of work release, 120 hours of useful public service, and attending a victim impact panel. In the second case, he was sentenced to four years of supervised probation, 180 days of work release (concurrent with the first case), and 120 hours of useful public service (consecutive to the first case).

Vahsholz has completed his period of work release. He was immediately suspended for this criminal conduct by the Colorado Supreme Court on July 3, 2019. He remains on felony probation, during which time he cannot be reinstated to the practice of law under In re Miranda, 289 P.3d 957, 960-63 (Colo. 2012). He thus will not be eligible for reinstatement until after he has completed his sentence of probation.

Through Vahsholtz’s misconduct, he violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).

The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.