People v. George Robert Vahsholtz. 22PDJ030. June 22, 2022.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended George Robert Vahsholtz (attorney registration number 07179) for three years. The suspension took effect on June 22, 2022. To be reinstated to the practice of law in Colorado, Vahsholtz must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has been rehabilitated, has complied with all disciplinary orders and rules, and is fit to practice law.
In July 2019, Vahsholtz was suspended in case number 19PDJ033 for one year and one day. Then, in April 2020, he was suspended for one year in case number 20PDJ017, to run concurrent with the suspension in case number 19PDJ033. Vahsholtz remains suspended and has yet to petition for reinstatement.
In July 2020, a former client of Vahsholtz contacted him about sealing a record in a criminal matter. Vahsholtz told the former client that he was suspended from the practice of law, and the former client retained another lawyer. Nevertheless, Vahsholtz collected $3,000.00 from the former client and applied that money toward the fees of the former client’s new lawyer as the new lawyer billed them. Vahsholtz did not hold the former client’s money in trust. The former client’s new lawyer ultimately concluded there was no pathway forward, and Vahsholtz agreed. Vahsholtz eventually refunded to the former client $2,000.00 that had not been billed for work by lawyers on the former client’s case.
Later, Vahsholtz asked a prosecutor to look into his former client’s case. In September 2021, Vahsholtz left the former client a voicemail promising to contact a judge in the near future. A few weeks later, Vahsholtz left the former client another voicemail describing a conversation he had with a new district attorney and vowing to set the matter for a hearing if he did not get a satisfactory answer about the former client’s case from the new prosecutor. When the former client later asked for an update in setting a hearing, Vahsholtz responded, “October 29, get decision.” Vahsholtz admits he acted in a representative capacity when communicating with the district attorney and as reflected in Vahsholtz’s correspondence with his former client.
Through this conduct, Vahsholtz violated Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) (a lawyer must hold client property separate from the lawyer’s own property); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer must not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); and Colo. RPC 5.5(a)(2) (a lawyer must not practice law when doing so violates regulations of the legal profession).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 242.41(a).