People v. Morgan M. Wiener. 25PDJ16. April 2, 2025.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Morgan M. Wiener (attorney registration number 42002) from the practice of law for nine months, with three months to be served and six months to be stayed pending Wiener’s successful completion of a three-year period of probation, with conditions. The suspension, which takes into account Wiener’s mental and physical health problems, is effective April 7, 2025.
Wiener is a trusts and estates litigator. She opened her own firm in October 2023. In one client representation, Wiener failed to communicate with a client who believed she had a hearing that day. Wiener believed a status report was due instead. The client, not Wiener, filed a status report.
In another representation, two co-conservators in a probate court matter retained Wiener in November 2022. Wiener’s last communication with them was in June 2023. After they were unable to contact Wiener for several months to discuss annual reporting requirements or to arrange for the filing of an annual report, they hired new counsel. The co-conservators did not know that the court had issued several orders in the matter; even though Wiener was aware of the orders, she had not told her clients about the orders. Nor did she file an annual report.
In yet another client matter, Wiener failed to respond to opposing counsel’s demands, failed to advise her client about the client’s deposition, did not file any pleadings in the six months before a contested hearing, and failed to confer with opposing counsel about the motions that opposing counsel had filed.
In a fourth client matter, Wiener delayed in acting on behalf of a client who wished to contest a will. Due to Wiener’s inaction, evidence may have been lost, and her client may have lost out on inheritance. Wiener also did not timely respond to the client’s communications.
In a fifth matter, Wiener was not responsive to her client and did not inform the client about orders issued by the court, including orders concerning attorney’s fees. After the client called the court’s clerk, the court issued a show cause order directing to Wiener to appear. Wiener failed to do so.
Through this misconduct, Wiener violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4 (a lawyer must communicate with a client); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer must not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 242.41(a).