Ragusin, Andrew, 10 Sa 67032811
Ragusin, Andrew, 10 Sa 67032811
Ragusin, Andrew, 10 Sa 67032811
'
Original Proceeding in Unauthorized Practice of Law 29 zon
09UPL116, 09UPL127, 09UPL128, 09UPL140, 09UPL142,
lOUPL2, and 10UPL7
, Petitioner:
Respondents:,
Association, LLC filed in the above cause, and now being sufficiently advised in
the premises,
pay restitution in the amount of $590,000 in accordance with the sentence entered
statutory interest accruing from August 27,2010, to date of payment; and that T.
ANDREW RAGUSIN is ordered to pay a fine of$5000.00 within one year from
Colorado.
assessed costs in the amount of $3030.26. Said costs to be paid to the Office of
Attorney Regulation Counsel within one year from the date of this order.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies mailed via the State's Mail Services Division on March 28, 2011 r-
Kim E Ikeler Ragusin International Association,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY LLC
REGULATION 9564 Kalamere Court
1560 Broadway Ste 1800 Littleton, CO 80126
Denver, CO 80202
T. A Ragusin T. A Ragusin
151368 6281 S. Netherland Way
Skyline Correctional Center Aurora, CO 80016
P.O. Box 300
Canon City, CO 81215
i SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
2 East 14 th Avenue, 4 th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
I Respondent:
I T. ANDREW RAGUSIN and RAGUSIN
I INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LLC
I ."'--,---.
I Kim E. Ikeler, # 15590
I Assistant Regulation Counsel
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
I Denver, CO 80202
I Telephone: (303) 866-6440
I Fax No.: (303) 893-5302
I E-Mail Address:[email protected]
I Attorney for Petitioner
C20, P.O. Box 300, Canon City, CO 81215. Ragusin is not licensed
2
practice in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Italy
that right.
4
matter in 2006, during which he acknowledged the stipulation
the Claims set forth in the Petition for Contempt Citation and
6
criminal cases". Ragusin pled guilty to two counts of felony
theft. 2
is attached as Exhibit B.
specifically agree that they are not permitted to practice law in the
7
RECOMMENDATION FOR AND CONSENT TO ORDER OF
CONTEMPT
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF FREMONT ) ,
IJ;/vv.~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this - f - l - - day of .JaOOat=¥
2011, by Tullio Andrew Ragusin, known to Witness my hand
and official seal. My commission expires: ----+---+...,,-:z:---""'-~_--=~
Kim E. Ikeler
Assistant Regulation Counsel
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone Number: (303) 866-6440
Attorney for Petitioner
Q
) )
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW,
,
09UPL127, 09UPL140, 09UPL142, '.
vs.
Respondents:
T. ANDREW RAGUSIN and RAGUSIN
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LLC
practice of law.
2
JURISDICTION
3
..
the Petition for Injunction in that case (to which the parties
thereunder.
5
matters. Ragusin. and Ragusin International in the person of
follows.
CLAIM I
FRIEL MATTER
his death left real estate in Italy and the Seychelles Islands.
DOrigo. his sister and the widow held interests in these assets.
13. Friel and Dorigo asked the honorary Italian Vice Consul
assist them with the division of the properties. Ms. Scordo referred
6
International. 5
5 Ragusin had previously held himself out to Ms. Scordo Allen as an experienced
international attorney authorized to practice law in Italy.
6 The retainer and most of the subsequent payments for fees were made by wire
transfer from Friel to Transnational Legal Solutions Corp., another entity operated
by Ragusin.
7
engage an Italian law frrm. Bevilacqua Marrazato ("the Bevilacqua
International $250 per hour for work done by the Bevilacqua law
for the division of the assets of the Dongo family. The Special
agreement for this division. and advised Friel and Dorigo about the
8
implementation of the legal mechanism he suggested. 7
handle their assets and interests in the United States. Italy and the
7 The Italian properties were located in or near Verona, in the Veneto region of
Italy. As noted above, upon infonnation and belief, Ragusin was not licensed to
practice law in the Veneto region.
8 As noted above, Ragusin is not licensed to practice law in Colorado or any other
jurisdiction in the United States. Upon infonnation and belief, Ragusin is not
licensed to practice law in the Seychelles Islands.
9 As noted above, Ragusin is not licensed to practice law in Luxembourg.
9
(governed by Colorado law). including a family trust and a post-
nuptial agreement.
and Dorigo.
agreement between Lugiu US, LLC and Lugiu IT, SrI. Ragusin also
10
management services agreement between Lugiu US. LLC and Lugiu
IT. SrI.
into trust of income from certain of the properties for use in paying
II
the debts and managing the assets of the properties, and
Friel and Dorigo concerning the legal and tax effect of the affidavit.
Dorigo and other family members, and the means by which funds
12
having to do with the flow of income and sale proceeds from the
i3
fmalizing and closing the property division agreement, attending a
he was fmalizing the escrow agreement and the trust company and
respondents and Friel and Dorigo broke down, after Dorigo learned
that Ragusin International had not paid the Bevilacqua law fIrm.
International never paid the Bevilacqua law fIrm for its work. The
14
Islands real properties and related matters. by providing legal
law.
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
15
36. Through the acts of its principal, Ragusin
CLAIM II
REYNOLDS MATTER
37. Lee Ann Reynolds and her husband Robert Reynolds are
resident of Arizona.
The Reynolds and Ms. Lemire believed they had a claim against
Ranch.
16
not disclose that he was not licensed in Colorado. In particular,
drafted.
and fonn a new Colorado entity, in order to cut off potential liability
17
43. Under the mistaken assumption that Ragusin was a
approximately $6.600.
law fIrm for its work. Ragusin also failed to fIle trademarks for
about his lack of action by telling them that he had prepared and
18
included provisions for non-voting preferred units to be granted to a
not to take the case. Ragusin failed to take any other action
19
forward on the case by obtaining a certification of meritorious
and Ms. Lemire that he had hired Mr. Astuno and that Mr. Astuno
20
Opaline Solutions' trademark, stating: "I am counsel to Opaline
third party of defamation. demanded that the third party cease and
54. Ragusin told Ms. Lemire that he would prepare and file
entity in Arizona.
21
57. On September 29.2008. Ms. Lemire as general manager
that his remaining fees be paid before he turned over his mes on
Opaline Solutions. Ragusin assured Ms. Lemire that there was not
Until they received this infonnation. Ms. Lemire and the Reynolds
22
60. By holding himself out to the Reynolds and Ms.
providing the Reynolds and Ms. Lemire with legal advice about the
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
was the practice of law, and was not authorized by any state's or
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
23
Order of Injunction. but instead willfully refused to abide by the
CLAIMUI
DeGAETANO MATTER
father and then the aunt passed on. DeGaetano wished to transfer
10 As noted above, Ragusin is not licensed to practice law in the Puglia region.
24
66. DeGaetano learned of Ragusin through the honorary
was licensed in the United States and Italy and was qualified to
search the title of the property and to transfer title through probate.
11The retainer agreement bears the heading "Ragusin & Associates, LLC". This
entity apparently was a predecessor of Rag us in International.
25
claimed that the aunt had agreed to give one floor of the residence
the aunt was alive. Ragusin told DeGaetano that the caregiver had
mistreated the aunt. stolen her money, and placed her in a poorly-
run nursing home, where she died. The caregiver's fraud required
that they could not be sold during the litigation. Ragusin agreed to
26
an attachment order, efforts to appoint a trustee to receive the
commenced the Italian probate action. that the caregiver had never
been served with process, and that no orders had ever issued.
27
matters, Ragusin engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
was the practice of law, and was not authorized by statute, case
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
28
CLAIM IV
WIARD MATTER
clerk whUe she was in law school. Mer she became a Colorado
residence.
77. During the time she was employed by him, Ragusin held
Colorado law. This statement was false. When Wiard learned that
these statements were false, she resigned her pOSition with Ragusin
InteITlational.
29
practice international law, Ragusln engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
was the practice of law, and was not authorized by statute. case
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
CLAIM V
HARVEY MATTER
30
New Mexico. As Harvey later told Ragusin, she wished to purchase
Netherlands.
nine years old, not seven as the agents had represented. The
31
attorney Marc C. Patoile, with Folkestad Fazekas Barrick & Patoile.
that he had worked for major law firms and taught at the University
of Denver College of Law. While Ragusin did not state that he was
that he recited gave that impression. Ragusin did not reveal that
Colorado in 2005.
32
represent her with regard to a civil action in Europe regarding the
Colorado.
33
the procedural advantages and disadvantages of bringing an action
against the seller and the Dutch agent, Dana Hewett, including
had substituted another horse (one that was healthy) for Donati at
34
Dutch counsel. He announced himself as Harvey's "European
would try the case, but that the local Dutch counsel would appear
35
attachment order to issue by the end of 2008.
36
97. By holding himself out to Mr. Patoile and Harvey as
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
was the practice of law, and was not authOrized by statute. case
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
37
101. Through the acts of its principal, Ragusin International
CLAIM VI
SCHORR MATTER
help her with her case. At relevant times, Ragusin was doing
agreement.
38
104. In April 2005, Ragusin reported to Schorr that a
Schorr that her claim was worth much more. He advised that
medical costs, pain and suffering damages and future costs Schorr
would incur as a result of her injuries. Ragusin (at the time doing
39
Ragusin reported that Ms. Vichi was withdra"...ing because she was
act as local counsel for her case. Ragusin told Schorr that he
would still be handling the bulk of the work and that the Gianni
107. Ragusin reported that trial was set for June 9. 2008. and
on that date. Ragusin and a lawyer from the Gianni frrm attended
Trial was rescheduled for October 13, 2008 and then rescheduled.
40
Bevilacqua Marazzato (the "Bevilacqua frrm"). to represent Schorr in
hearings.
law.
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
41
was the practice of law. and was not authorized by statute. case
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
CLAIM VII
RIVERA MATTER
resident. is the son of Maria Rosa Rivera. She owned real property
42
properties. He endeavored to make inquiries of persons in Italy,
without success.
area". Ragusin did not disclose that he had been enjoined from the
2005.
14See footnote 2, above. Although Ragusin had been enjoined from the
unauthorized practice of law in 2005 and had agreed to shut down the office of
Ragusin & Associates, LLC, he continued to operate that entity. Eventually, the
entity transfonned into Ragusin International.
43
residence.
for properties that were owned or had been owned by the mother
Ragusin to the real estate agency bore the heading "Ragusin &
his sister with the results of the title search of the properties.
family who are also public officials". Ragusin reported that certain
ISAs noted above, Ragusin was not licensed to practice law in the Trapani district
or the Marsala district.
44
banks had enjoined the sales of the properties on grounds that they
bank was alleging that the two Italians had engaged in forgery and
45
124. Ragusin prepared powers of attorney giving him
agreed to join forces with the Estate. Ragusin claimed that the two
also explained to Rivera that the banks were joining forces with the
46
Italians in the properties.
met with a witness in Italy who also was a Rivera relative. The
May.
forth the steps by which the two Italians had fraudulently conveyed
47
anticipation that it would be assigned to an assistant district
the first page of the complaint, bearing a date stamp. On July 17,
48
connection with recent transfers of the properties among persons in
attachment.
case in Marsala. Ragusin met with Rivera and his sister. They
living in Italy.
49
of the family and the Italian branch related to the conduct of the
Rivera and his sister that he had spoken by telephone with the
50
Ragusin planned to meet In Rome with Italian counsel for one of
137. In Fall 2008, Ragusin told Rivera and his sister that he
was preparing for trial. RagusIn prepared motions for filing with
the Marsala court. He discussed these motions with Rivera and his
51
sister. Ragusin told them that he would be paying fees due to the
Because it had not been paid. the Rome law frrm that was assisting
with the litigation withdrew and threatened to sue for its fees.
he met with the assistant district attorney and the president of the
local bar.
Rivera and his siblings regarding the strategy and tactics being
trustee drew the Marsala court's attention to the fact that he had
had agreed to pay for the trustee's services. Ragusin also contacted
52
the trust departments of several European banks as potential
practice law within the Italian Republic and therefore cannot validly
53
143. By holding himself out to Rivera and his siblings as
Ragusin knew at the time he committed each act that such conduct
was the practice of law. and was not authorized by statute. case
conduct. The respondent also had the ability to comply with the
54
146. The above-described conduct constitutes willful
citation to Ragusin to show cause why the Court should not find
55
imprisonment. and order full restitution to his victims. If a citation
is issued, the citation need also state that a fme of not less than
that person in connection with legal rights and duties. See, People
v. ShelL 148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006); and Denver Bar Assn. v. P.U.C .•
154 Colo. 273. 391 P.2d 467 (1964). Ragusin International does
practice of law. or in the alternative that this court refer this matter
56
to a hearing master for determination of facts and
fees against Ragusin International; order the refund of any and all
this Court.
Kim E. Ikeler
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Petitioner
57
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. 05SA70
TWO EAST 14TH AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
:j7
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF RECEIVED
LAW, 03UPL65
MAR 072005
Petitioner:
T. ANDREW RAGUSIN.
Copies mailed via the State's Mail Services Division on 31ftoS'" 7lOt.I!
• EXHIBIT
1!1
I
• 1
SUPREME COURI', STATE OF COLORADO
2 East 14th Avenue. 4th Floor
FILED IN THE
Denver, Colorado 80203 SUPREME COURT _
• EXHlBlT
I JJ
I
3. On February 18. 2005, the filtng of this petition requesting
approval for ft1Jng a Stipulation. Agreement and Affidavtt Consenting to an
Order of Injunction. attached as Exhibit A. was authorized by the Unauthorized
Practice of Law Committee of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Charles E. MoY"rl"''''-
Assistant Re n Counsel
Attorney for Petitioner
2
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
2 East 14th Avenue, 4th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Petitioner:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORIffiO
e
l-
....:,
\.
I'
.
S. Putawmt to C.R.CoP. 251.32. the respondent agrees to PQ' the
COlta and administrative costs in the 8'LlIU of $231.00 incurred In OOI'ljunedon
with this matt.aP' within thirty (30) daya afttJr the acceptance of the atipulatlOD
by the Colorade Supreme Court. A copy of the Statement 01 Costa is attached
hereto as ~.2. .
"
uco'MM!imA'ftOIl roB AIm COlI-lIT 10 ORDR 0, !lI'JQICTJOI
Based o~ the fO-~ the pa,\'1ica hereto recommend an order be
entered eJU~ ~ respondent &om the unauthorized pra.Ctice ot law. and
ti-t
requiring that tpe respondent pay costs in the amount 01 $231.00.
,.
~.
A~fbr ~tioDer
j'
.,
.'
.'
.'
• to
• •
." SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NOS. OlUPLll, OlUPL35
BEFORE THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMI'ITEE
v.
T. ANDREW RAGUSIN,
Respondent.
;m
of
1
• 1
2.
• •
The respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Colorado by operating and maintaining a foreign legal consulting practice from
August 1997 through May 31, 2001, in Denver, Colorado and from June 1, 2001
through January 31, 2002 in Greenwood Village, Colorado. The fum was called
Ragusin International Associates, LLC, employed lawyers licensed in Colorado and
other jurisdictions, represented clients based in Colorado and other jurisdictions
on issues involving laws of foreign jurisdictions (but also sometimes affected by
Colorado law).
3. The respondent has acted under the belief that he was a member of a
recognized legal profession in Belgium and was thus entitled to provide legal
advice about Belgium law, and was authorized under the May 2, 1996 European
union reciprocity provisions to act as European counsel in European union
countries, and therefore believed at all times relevant hereto that he was not
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Colorado. The respondent
acknowledges, however, that he is not a licensed member of any of the 28 local bar
associations of Belgium, any of the 29 orders of advocates in Belgium, and is not a
member of the Belgium Bar Association. The respondent also recognizes that he
has not taken any "Oath of Lawyer'" before anyone of Belgium's courts of appeal
as required for licensed lawyers in Belgium. The respondent acknowledges that he
is not subject to sanctions by the General Council of the Belgium Bar Association
or any other licensing disciplinary authority in Belgium for any violation of Belgian
rules of professional conduct. The respondent also acknowledges that he would
have to submit to additional requirements, including a three-year internship with
a licensed Belgian lawyer, before he could be a licensed lawyer in Belgium.
Nevertheless, the respondent states that a candidate of law degree that he received
from the Free University of Brussels, and a license in criminological sciences that
he received from the same university, allows him to be a member of a non-
licensed, but legally recognized. legal consulting profession in Belgium; the
respondent states that this educational background allows him to advise clients on
Belgian law. The respondent has also received a Master of Comparative Law
(1981) and a Juris Doctor (1983) from Southern Methodist University.
4. In mitigation~ the respondent states that he did not hold himself out
to be a Colorado lawyer and that he did not render legal advice concerning
Colorado law. The respondent states that his activities were that of acting as
European counsel, and that he associated with Colorado lawyers who handled any
matters involving Colorado law. The respondent further states that he engaged in
oral conversations with the executive director of the Board of Law Examiners in
1991 and based upon such conversations, he believed that as long as he did not
hold himself out to be a Colorado admitted lawyer and did not render Colorado
legal advice, his conduct did not fall within the confines of unauthorized practice
of law in Colorado. The respondent states that his past belief is demonstrated by
his written communications to the Colorado State Board of Law Examiners
regarding an application for admission to the bar by one of the respondent's
associates, Timothy Langley. See statement of mitigation submitted by this
respondent attached hereto as exhibit A.
2
-.
r 5.
•
The respondent specifically agrees to refrain from operating and
maintaining a foreign legal consulting fmn in Colorado and from engaging in any
other activity constituting the practice of law in Colorado until and unless he
becomes licensed to practice law in Colorado or otherwise complies with ABA
Formal Opinion 01-423 (September 22, 2001), a copy of which is attached to this
agreement as exhibit B. The respondent now agrees that being a -member of a
recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction,· as that phrase is used in ABA
Formal Opinion 01-423, requires that he possess a license to practice law from
that foreign jurisdiction, be subject to standards of professional conduct in that
foreign jurisdiction, and be subject to a system of sa.1"lctions for violations of those
standards. Furthermore, the respondent agrees that once he meets the above
criteria, he still must be associated with a Colorado lawyer in order to provide any
foreign legal consulting in Colorado. These requirements shall remain in effect
until and unless the Colorado Supreme Court or its Unauthorized Practice of Law
Committee adopt a different definition for the phrase "member of a recogni?.ed legal
profession in a foreign jurisdiction," or otherwise modify Colorado law involving the
status of non~licensed foreign legal consultants. In exchange, the People agree not
to take any further injunctive or legal action on this matter under C.R.C.P. 228, et
seq.
6. The respondent agrees that Ragusin International Associates, L.L.C., will
be completely shut down on or before February 15,2002. The respondent agrees
that he will notify each client that he has shut down his practice in Colorado and
advise the client to seek legal services elsewhere. The respondent agrees that he
shall deliver to each client all papers and property to which each client is entitled
no later than February IS, 2002.
10. The respondent affmns that he enters this agreement freely and
voluntarily. No promises have been made to the respondent by any person or
agency concerning this agreement. He understands that this written agreement
constitutes the full agreement between the parties without outside promises, limits
or qualifications. The respondent's acceptance of this agreement is completely
voluntary. The respondent further understands that signing this agreement will
not prevent or replace any civil or other proceedings that any of his clients may
bring in the courts of Colorado.
3
.. ..
"
.
• •
11. This agreement constitutes an offer of settlement or compromise, and
is tendered to the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee for approval and
acceptance. Should the Committee reject this agreement, this agreement (and any
of the statements contained herein) can not be used in this proceeding or any
other proceeding.
By: AMiI£: ~
David A. Mestas
Chair
~~~
Michael Berger, #6619
Attorney for Respondent
303 E. 17th Street, Suite 940
Denver, CO 80203
4
• STATEMENT IN MmGAnON
•
Upon moving to Colorado in Man:h of 1997, 1 was referred by Holland &. Hart to
the Slate Board of Law Examiners for putposes of inquiring about the requirements for a
foreign legal consultant 10 provide foreign legal advioe in Colo~o. When I called the
Colorado Supreme Court phone number given to me, I generically described the gist of
my inquiry to the individual answering my call and was referred to Mr. Alan Ogden. I
then spoke to Mr. Ogden. I described with specificity to Mr. Ogden my intended scope
of activity, in particular the fact I intended to act as "European counscl." Mr. Ogden
advised me that (i) the Colorado Supreme Court had elected not to regulate the activities
of foreign legal consultants, and (ii) as long as I did not hold myself as a Colorado
admitted l~wyer and' did not render advice with respect to Colorado law, the intended
scope of practice did not constitute the "unauthorized practice of law· in Colorado.
Based on the foregoing, I believed in good faith that as long as the foreign
lawyers or jurists in my firm (0 continued to scrupulously confule their activities to their
field of expertise. (ii) did not hold themselves as Colorado lawyers, (iii) did. not advise
clients in matters of Colorado or U.S. law, and (iv) fully disclosed such limitations to
clients, that neither the finn nor I were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Colorado.
J..S·2oc:fi.
Date
T.~~··
nA EXHIBIT
I
• AFPIQAvrT •
BEFORE ME, the uilde.rsigned authority, this day personally appeared Timothy P.
'Langley. from Ragusin Intemational Associates. LLC of707 SeventeCSJth Street, Suile2900,
Denver, Colorado 80202, \Yho being by me duly SWD~ stated IS follows:
.
''My name is Timothy. P. Langley (the ''Undeniped''). from ,hgusin International
Associates, LLC of701 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900, Denver, Colorado 80202. I am a citizea
of the State of Colorado, United ~tatcs ofAmerica, over the age of eighteen (18) yean, hav,
never been convicted of I crime and uq competent to testify to the fad! contained ber. SIUDC
being bued upon my pcrsQnal knowledge. I bereby certify and attest to the followins facti
regarding Ragusin International Associates. ~ and myself: .
2 RIA is 8 "small group of consultants that advises clients with respect to 'overseas
transactions or cperaDODs. A number of the oonsultants are admitted to practice law in
foreign jurisdictions, and are advising clients in their reapectivc ueu of qullificaticm. I
wu recruited l:!Y RlA in my capacity as ~ormer General Counsel of Apple Computer for
Japan. to assist R1A clientll wishing to CODduct business in Far East Asia, with reprds to
matters whoUy unrelated to Colorado law. I have not tieen aiked to by RIA, nor have I at
any time rendered advice pertaining to Colorado law. At no time h. any member or
associate of RIA rendered Colorado law advice and the nature of the Ictivitia ofRlA hu
strictly complied with this requircme:nl The few clicots wmdihave approached RIA
with incidental mattm ~t deal with Colorado law bllve been referred appropriately to
outside cmmscl authorized to pncdcc Colorado law.'·
SEAL
- AFFIDAvrr
BEFORE ME, the undersisn~ authority, this day perso~allY appeared T. Andrew
Ragusin of RagU5in Intemationll AssoclatCII. LLC of707 Seventeenth Street. Suite 2900.
Dci1ver. Colorado 80202. who
being by me duly sworn, stated 81 foUows:
.
I
. ~ •
2. . All rijc: infonnation and stalemc:nts given by Mr. Timothy Langley in the Affidavit 81.1lI
truthfUl and ac:::curBte.··
Su~'W"cd and affumcd before m.1hit ./.I!l::.. day o}9jICoe~:!!!3~~ 2000, in the
count)' of I!J..'-e;d~ • State of Colorido.
SEAL
,- shJp.r or 01.
I, I.r permwlbk undu tlw Modd RrtIu.for U.s. itnttJwn for", pdr"""
'0
,,,,I,la prtJC,b Itzw 'n "ltkltlorelgn ~ tin pan".,."
or ownen. QJ 10", as ,n.foreign I~n ore _",ben tja recClJIlltud l.gaI
'0
prq{,:mtJII In a len/gil JurUdktl"" tJIIf:i 'M tllTtuJ._nt II /n eOlllP(Ianr:.
willt ,n.law q{jw&dit:tiOM wlNtre 1.1"'" prat:llcu. u'''''''n olaproJu-
sloll ,,. U IIDI r,caenizcd m (J l,goI prqfuslon by 'M Jorelgn jvrIuIictiDli
'WOuld. hOlllftWlr. hi II',IMII "nOltimvyttn .. such ,1IIlI1JI.inti"Ing,M""O pan-
Mr6ltlp would .,'olfll. Rill. S.4 (Profou/tJIIIJIlnd,penMm:a DI J.mvyu).
Bfflore ocuptlng aJoreign It:rWJIfU' tU II pori"'" ,1M FUPtJIIII6l. IlI'W)'tIn In II
U.s. lIN f".", htlN tJII "hklll obllgllll"" 10 , . rwuOlltlb,. s'ttp6 'MIIN '0
,hOI'M foreign- lQ'W)W" IfIMlliftu . " . ,,," sltJlldt:rll tJIId IIIIlIIIw tln'DIIJ(I-
_ I l l II .''' eornplltJlll:' 'With ,1M ItnIf of'M jur&dit:tI"". w".,. ,1Mfinn pI'tIIC-
lieu. n. rUpoMl6,. Imv,yen In II u.s. law}inltt abo IttzIfI!I .1hkaI obi/po
,I"". 'D , . rfftUtJllQ6M s"P' to fflWll"e '1ItAI mlIll.n Ilf ,1M" U.s. oJ/icu
- -
IIIWJM", npr'.JIIIIlIII'tJII 'n (J lenip jlll'WklltJII tin IIIDIfUJ.d tlt:t:DI'"- 'If
dQllCfl with IIpplkDbl••,mem rulu. and IhtAt D11lt1'11f)'U'6 ,1Mfinn eomplp'If
with DlMr tJpplbrbl. ,lIabIll'IlIu
*")
./
As business has become more inlematioMl in IIcopc.. American business om-
ciaas wish to be repr=sented by law firms capable' of advilina them c::onc:cmq the
laws of foreign cotm1rics. To meet lhese expcctadoas. mon: U.s. law firms have
souBht 10 sain international lepl expertise. Some of Ihcse fll"lllS have formed
partnerships and similar affiliations with lawyers ftam oIber counIries. 1
".:.. ~ ....... *:",";:,,",+~.:.,.
1i
I
I. Law firms senei'll'" conduct ttacir iDeem.lienai ""ices in one of several
I
moc:lc:s: (I) Ihe global fll'll'l c....vGlS to llllintain an oKa in eacb major jurisdicliao
! IIDd same minar jurisdic:doas, providq in-dcpCh. lacallaw ccwenae; (2) the intcma-
tiona! fum seeks a-presenc:e in mo. major juri!ldicdcms IIIId a few minor ones ira which
clients need lheit prese:acc, but with litde cmpIIasis on IoaIIaw eapabililia; (3) Ihe
inlemational network calls for exclume or nonexclusiw cross-rcfaraIs and 100000law
f capabilities 11l11OIII rums ira each major jurisdidioa and many minor oaa, with firms
t-
I
ThIll opInIOn II baIecI on .,. Model RuIeII vi PnIfeuIclrIII COnduct .... ID . . UlllnlII'IcIIrI:aIId. III
-' precIeceucIf MadII Code 01 PmessIonII ~ 01.,. AmeIicaft ... MlK'Ci Ie L 'file .....
I•
I
CIIUl . . . . raguIaIcnI, _ _ 01 ptOfe8sIanIII~..... opInIaIII ~ n"liIIdIwId-
IlllljuridC.Ili. . . CiOi. . . . . .
AMEAICNI BAA ASSCJQA110N STANDING CCUMIiTEE ON mtICS AJIIIJ PADFlSSIOtW. ~
! BUrl. 141 NIdI Fa_M CauIt. 141'1 Floor. CIIIc:iIgo. ..... 1IG81'I-U'. T. . . . . (312)111-
11300 CHAIR: I:IonaId a. .... ChIcago, IL a L _ c. AIVnII. w.... _ .. DC Q .IaII!:bGn ill
sn-. Jr" ........... Wi a WIIIiIIn I. DuM. DaiIIIl. MI a ..... w. ~ PIlIItodrIIpNa. PA Q
'\ aMI'II I. HMiIon" PIIoenk, IZ. a DanIel W. HIIdebraftd. MacIIIon. Wi Q WiIIIIm H. ....... Jr~
; WItIIIngfr.In, DC a M. PeIIr . . . . IaiIIImDrIt. MD a ctN'I"ER FOR PI'lllFEl!lSlOtW RESPONSIBIUTY:
-' GeaIge A. Kuhlman, EIhIc:I CounIII; Eleen a. LIbIIor. AIIodIIIt EI\IcI CcIItIIIeI
02ClO1 by"~ ... Alaclc:flllCft.M ............
..
II IXHIBIT
~;::,
... :~
.. - :-
o!
:
I B
·.
: ..
I
I ;
01-423 Formal Opinion 2
I
Growing numbers of foreign-based raw firms have acquinld expertise ia the
law and practices of jurisdictions foreisn to lhem by hirinl locally-licensed
1
la~ to help advise their cliems. Some oflhese forcip-bated law rmas eida
haw: hired US. lawyers or mcraed with U.s. law fums in onIc:r 10 ~ 1_
advice mmailers dependent upon U.s. "'.2
The Commiacc Is asked whether the praClic:c of U.s. lawyers fOlTllirlg puCner-
ships with forcian lawyersl violates the Model Rules of Professional ConduCt JIIO'"
saiplions against forming law panncnhips 01' simil.. assodatiGas with aoaIawyen.
against sharing legal fees with nonlawycn. and against enJ8IiI!s in or assisdq
BnOlher in the unauthorized practice of law. After considering the pmposes for
t
these proscriptions. the Commiace concludes lhaIthe Model Rules do naa prohibit
US. 1a\¥)'aS fi'om fonning panncrships willi foreign brwyas4 for Ihe purpMCI of
j pradJcing law. 'Ibe foreip lawya'l nI\'ISC,. however, be membcn of a ~
I
I
I
IcpI profession in abe foreign jurisdiction IUId the arranpmaIt musI be in COI1IpIi-
ancc with the law ofdle foreip and US. Jurisdictions wheN the fum ~
Fonnlag Plnunldps WI. Farelp LaW)'en
Dca Hoi Vialate All]' Model Rule
No proYisioll of the Model Rules" specifically addresses whether III forcip
t
E lawyer may be admincd 10 parmcnhip in a U.s. finn. There arc. however, pr0hi-
~
::
bitions in Rule S... against nonlawycrs sharinl in IqaI fees or being parbJeI's or .
.!
"
1 in cacb jurisdiction qualified to provide local law cxpcnUe. Each ...,. a mcmbenbip
fcc baed on size and qn:es to provide 811)' other mc:mba' firm ftellIdvic:a l1li a 1D8I-
,;; : ."" ; (cr. See gellllTlJl1jI Maircad Keohuc, NallkllllfielDI,),. ~ l..IIw. 8usoas
(Nomnl:JerlDccember 1999). For elhicallssues inYOlved ill law firm diliadons, sa:
ABA CDmmince on &hies and Prof. RlCSpOftSibility FOI'IIIIII Op. 94-31' (Relationships
Amoaa Law Firms). in FORMAL AND INfoau.w. ETHICS OPIMJDHS 1983-1998262
(ABA 2000). and ABA Formal Op.......3SI (LctteIbead Desipudion arNAffilillled" or
..AslI'aCiIIIed'" Law Firms).1d. II 4.
2. For a summary 01 stllisdcal infOl11l8lion" pIIms and IIJ'IIfqies of tbc wartcrs
Jaricsi law nms. sec Laura Pearlman. Olobll SO, available at
hnp:lIwww.!awjobs.comisurveyslgJobaISO.h_ Scan Famn. l..oItiIIIn IAr•• n..
Lort« WQ/I: n. u.K. SEll. WIIIIt ... NftI1 YorA J.Ittrpr. Bwt ~ WfIIIA Fb DIy
CDlUidu A Pllllr. MIlQlIWhIJe. n..1I' U.s. Stn.u.,1a Are A Mf11116. TIll .ANERICAN
LAWYEIl (November 2000), available at WESt1.AW. J JIlOOO A.MLAW 'I.
3. 1111 tenD "fore'" Iawya'" Is used here 10 dcno1Ir a pcrsaa wIIo has lICIt beca
licensed lenmally 10 pnacdce law by aay state. ten1101)'. or CGmmonwealdl of d1c
United States, but who Is authorized to pracdce tD a recosaiud IepI pmfessloD by •
jurisdic1kla elsewhere. Forclsn IepI consuI1anIs In: considered foreip Iaw1aS for
tbIs purpose, even shoup IhC)' may haw: quallflCCllD'Ida' IfM: laws of a stale 10 counsel
...u.s.
clien1S io d!at jurisdiction GIIIfM: laws ar • jurisdicIkl8. So, ..... New York
RuJa of lbe eoun of Appeals. Rules for tbe LiceDsiDl of Legal Consahants"
N.YACt. I SlI.1 et seq. (McKiImcy 2000).
4. The: analysis in Ibis opinion also applies to boIding membership ill limiIedIlia-
I billty comJIIIDict, 10 ownina shares ill professional associatioas. IIId 10 owniu& an
I interest in any 0Ihcr type of entity Iba pIKdces law.
i
-1
..
-- ••
1
o 3 Committee on Etbics and Professional Responsibility
I
t
I'
t
in II U.S.1Iw fbm.
The prohibitions in Rule 5." an: direc:1cd mainly apinst cntn:prencwial reia-'
lionships with nonJawyers and primarily an: for the purpose of protcctiDllII
lawyer's indcpendcncc in exerciling profession8.l judgmeDt os the client, behalf
free from contJol by mmlawyers.6 Thil Comminee c:cmsiltcudy hu intcrpreled
I
(
5. ModellWk 5.4 JUleS:
(a) A lawyer or law rum shall nOl shan: Ic:pi fees with. nonIIIw)'cr, exc:cpC dial:
aan:eman
(I) an by a lawyer with thc lawyer's rum" pIIUIIIr, or ISSCICiaU:
may provide for the paymCIII of money, ova I JaSOnIIbIc period of lime after
the Iawycr's death, 10 the lawyer's CSIIaIC or to one or more specified pascms;
(2) a lawyer who purdIases Ihc pl"llc:dcc of a cIcc:eued, disabled" or disap-
,
i
peared lav.ycr may, pulSUIIIl110 Ihc provisions of Rule 1.7, pay 10 the estate or
other rcprcsc:madw; of lhallawyer Ihc asrced-upon pun:huc price; and
(3) a lawyer or law firm 1M)' include nonlawyer employees ill I ~
salion or redn:mcnl pllln" CYm thoup the plan is bIIscd in whole or in pan oa •
profiliDa...... III11UI&CbICI1L
I
(b) A lawyer sbaU noI form a panncrsbip with allClftiaw)'er iiIIII)' of tile acdvidcs
ofn panncrship consist oflhc ~ of law.
" ,.,. (c) A lawyer shill DOl pcrmil II pcrsoa who rccommcnds" employs. or pays tile
Iliwyer 10 reader IcplsaYiccs for IInOthcr 10 direct or n:pIaSc the Iaw1a's profasfaD..
aljudgmcnt in ~ IUdi Ic:pi scrrices.
t
j
(eI) A lawyer shill noI prac:tic:c with or in the form of II ptofcssicnal carponatioa or
association lIuthorized 10 pnctic:c law _ • pront,. if:
(I) • ftonIawyer O'WBS 1111)' interest Ihcrcia, cxccpc that II fiducitlry rq:n-
sentlilive ollhc CSI.IIC ora lawyer 1M)' hold"1IM: Itodt or imc:rc:st of the 1aW)'a'
for II n:::asonable time durin& administnlion;
(2) • 11OnJaw:ycr ill c:orpanIC cHRiaor or ofIk:er Ihceol; or
(3) • nonlawyer has Ihc riabt to din:c:l or comroIthe professional juda-
mad or llawyI:r.
The Districa of Columbia is the only U.S.jurisdicdoa that IIIowIIawyers 10 baw: "
nonllwyer parlnCl'S subject, howcver, to striogaat c:oaditiou. S. D.C. RtIIc of
Professional Conduct So4 (a) (4) - (b) (2001).
6. Su Rule S.4 colli. In. 1bc Me was developed in Ihc ABA Hause of Dc.Icpta
durina dcbala OD the Kulak Commissiorfs Proposed Rule '.4. which the House
rejected. Sa 2 G.c. HAZAIID AM) W. W. HoDEs, THE LAw or LAW'YEII.ING (lit eeL
2001) f 4~. TbreaIs 10 lawyer professional indepenc:leacc n:suItiD& IiOlIl c:ocpontc
ownership or public inYCstlllCld ill lew rums !Cd Ihc House of DcIcpta 10 suIIsdftnc
nearly vabI1im the provisioDs of Ihc discipliDary rules in Ihc fGl1llCl' Model Code of
Professional Conduct for the Kulik Commission's proposal. sa ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct (2001 cd.). ConeWion Tabla, Table A .. 123. where it is DOCed ".
thai aada paraaraph of Rule 5.4 is subslantiall)' idc:naa.. 10 a disciplinu,y ........
paragrIIpI:a (I). Co DR 3-I02(A); panaraph (b), 10 DR 3·103(A); p1II"IIIWpb (c), flO DR
S·I07(b); and pIU'III8IIh (d), to DR j.107(C). Su HAZAIID A Ib:e /It .. ch. 4' for.
. -----
-- ' -.;
Rule 5.4 willi this purpose in mind, and on occasion bas rejected a literal appJic:a.
4
don of its povisions ..... did IlOl accord widB the purpose far the Rule.7
Rule S.4 accomplishelthis purpose by requirinc that lawyers, to the cxc:iusiOa
of nonlawyer'S, own and control law prac:dc:es. which thus helps asSure 'Chat clillllS
are BCCOAIcd the protec:lions of Ihe professional standards lawycn must mabataiP-
The Comminee believes Ibat foreip lawyen who are members of a recopimd
legal profession are qua6rlCd to accord these same protecdoas 10 clierds of U.s.
Jaw firms in which they become paI"IMU. Therefore, those foreip lawyers should
be considered lawyers mhcr than IKII'Ilawyers for purposes ofR. S.4.
This cqncepl fmds support ill Rule 7.5(b) because that rule recognizes that
there may be assoc:iadcms in law practice with !awyus not admiUed in the juris--
dictio... and requires only ..... Ihe fum indicate '"the jurisdicdobal limiiauOlll 011
those not licensed 10 practice ill the jurisdiction where the Oft"'1CC is.loca&ed....
When the Modd Rules wen: adopted, some U.S. law firms bid foreign lawyers as
pu1neIS: hence. BOy infalt 10 Rndcr the praclice a rules vioJalion needed 10 be
clearly staled. Yct P01hin& in this or lID)' other Model Rule,. or in the legislative
history of the Model Rules. suggests ihIt Ihe lenD "jurisdiction- IS used in Rule
7.s(b) cxcludesjurisdicdons outside the United States.
i
;
critique ofeacb paraamph of Rule 5.4 as ICIoph:d.ln Fehrualy 8nd AuJUll2DOO. con- .)
cem th.!d admission of nonlawyer professiollllls as putnea in law firms wouJd infaIo
........ fen: with IaW)'Crl' profasiorW ~_ ~ ~ofdlec.ore ...... of
.>11
the profession led Ihe HOUle of Ddcpta 10 n:jed pn:IpCIAIs 10 allow par1Df:rIIdps
wid! nonlawyer profcssioalds and 10 dIrec1 dud no . . . . be . . 10 Rule 5.4. S-
ABA Hause ofDelcpII:J l\eYised Report KIF, adcIpced Ju" 10.11,2000.
7. SU...... ABA FOrmal Op. Formal Op. 93-374, FCIUtW. AND INFolu.w. Enitcs
OPIMOHS 1983·1991 .. 182-84 (analyzina 1hc fOW' panpapbs of Rule 5.4 in 11_ of
its purpose to prolecl professional independence and c:oncIudin& thai Ihe rule is DOl
violaled by • Jawya's sharin& court.awanlcd fees wid! • pro boDo crpniza1ioD b
sponsors the litiption; the eonelusicn \VIS based penly on the abalenc:e in such f~
sbarina of an11hra11O the lawYer's independcDt professional judgmcnl); ABA Formal
Op. 880-3'6. id. .. 35 (payi1J8 service fcc 10 B s.emponsy IIIwya IIpIIIC1 baed OIl • per-
centage ollawya's WIIpI did 001 consdtute DkpI fcc-sp1i1Wla VIIdc:r Rule 5.4(11) or a
vioIaIicIa ar... 5.4(c»). •
f
8. Rule 7.s(b). In dJc former Modd Code ofProfessiooal ResponsIbility.1he simi-
IIII' provision, DR 2-102(D). was phrased ~ raIber than pennisstvdy and
pnwided thai. law pII'IIliasbip
shall DOl be formed or continued bctwcaa or IIDOI'II lawyas licensed in difl'CRIII
jurisdicdons unless all enumcralians of the manbcD and IIlISOCi8tes of the firm on
its Icaabcad IIId in ada pamimDie Jislinp make clear the jurisdictionalilmha-
lions on those members and associates of !be fimllIOIliccnscd 10 pracdcc In all list.
c:djurisdidions; bowcw:r,lhe same filTl'llllmC maybe used in eacbjurisdiction.
.' ........,
'
..... !
"
fII'.
-
S Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility 01-423
·t• 10. Once licensed. end willi specified limiLlticu 011 Ihe sc:opI of.the IepI consW-
UIOl's prac:dcc.1he consuIIaal is subjecllO Ihe licensiqjurisd~'s rules ofproCCs-
sional conducl and 10 discipline then:: and is subjecllO !he lIlGnIC)'-CIienI. work'1'fOd-
I•
I
ua. and simil. profcssiorual pivileJCS. fI 5, 6, It/. e.31·33. Not surprisinslY. fCSUic..
ljOIll 011 the scope of pniICIiol:. I 4, ill. It 31. resemble these ... lawfully could be
imposed on I kpI profcsskma.llieeDscd in one Eurvpcan comJI1UIIity member COUfJtIy
I wimina 10 prec:liCl in IIIIOlhcr. $c. Dctfcy F. Vqas. Prqfu61l11f111 Rapomlbility III
TraM"'_ P,.«lit:tl: ConjIlt:l ami RuG/filion; 13 Gm. J, LEo. ETHICS 6", 616
'.')
: "j. . ... loloo
I
f
!
(2000) (describin& Ibc eO'ecI·of.Rcynen v. Bel&l-.. 1974 E.CJl. 611. whIcb Rands
for the proposition Ihat citizens of'OIba Eunlpan ~ c:III1IlIGI be excluded by
one SI.IIU from the pI'lIC&iCI of law). The ABA Model Fordp Consultant Rule is nearly
Identical 10 the New York Rull: en lic:ensiPa forcEp • • ~ . . . ROle 3.
II. RIlle ,.3 stata:
A Iewyc:t sballaac
(e) prac:lice lew in Ijurisdiction where doing so violela the RluWon of
Ihc ICpI professioa ia Ibeljllrisdicdon; or
(b) assist. penon wOO is nail member oflbc bar in the pcrfonuna: of
or
activity daat constitlltes Ihe uneulbori:red pncaicc IIw.
12. 2 H.W.ID A HOoe, mpNI note 6, III I 46-3. "Prac:dciDlIaw" is • repleaory
l
,
f,
concept depcndeat upoD Ibc II. of eacb jurisdiClio.n. Approprielc lulhoriudon 10
practice In. Jurisdiclioa usually is gaiDed 1hrough bar cxamiDadaa end pncraI admil-
sion; admission as ltewycr either oa motion or tIIrouP a . . . bar examillelion; pro
hac 'lrICl admissioa for OCCISionaJ appceranc:a in COUl'1S" lllbiblllious. or adm~
hearings; euthorizatioa lOr ID-hou.se COtIII.SCI to .epiUUIII ber anpIoya; spa:ial11cen-
sure as I fORip lepl consuI1am; or (as allowed by $18_ rule ar c:ustcIm) tcmponIIy
appearenccs ill • jurisdic:tion in fUltherancc of metiers baYiDa • RIadonship 10 anodIt8
jurisdlClioa in wbicb die IIwyer is luthorized 10 handle the lepl ma1ter. S .. I
R£;sTA'fENEN'r (TaM, or 1HE LAw GovaNING LAWYEIIS. Topic: 2. Tide B § 3(3).
J",.lsdieIIOM' Se., oj ,It« PrcclJR of La", by II La.,. 24 (2000) (hereinafter
"IlEnA't1!NEN1"'1. dcf", !he jurisdicdaoal scope: or Ihe practice of Ia. by • lawyer
o as includins provision of IepI services 10 • clialt " ... place widIiD • jurisdiction in
wbidllbc IawyCl' is DCI admitlcd 10 the c:xt.cnIlhld die IIIW)'II's ecdvities IIrisc out of or
en: otbcnrisc rasouably n:Jat.cd 10 the lawyers precliec ia another jurisdJcdon where
allthoriza1.· See IIboi:ma. c.1tL &126-30.
.'.
.. .
_e· M
,..
II ~
I I
!
01-423 Formal 02inion
purpose of protecting clieta and Ihc jUrisdiction's IepI system tiom the adverse
effects of incompetence or unethical conduct. lJ The rule is DOt violaced by • r.
6
0
I
eiBn lawyer who. ahbough • plUU'lef or lISSOCialC in a law finn that has 111ft offICe to
pradice law in Ihc jurisdiction, ncverlhe1ess does nOl himsdf-pI1ICtice laW- in the :
jurisdiction as the lam is defined Ihcn:.
For these reasons, Ihe Commitlee is of Ihc opinion 1hat U.s. lawyers may in :
general form pannerships willi foreign lawyers provided die fomgnlawyen satis-
fY Ihc requirements dexribed in die I'ICXt pan. I
The ForelgD Lawyer Mud Be a Member of a Recoplzed Legal Profess_ I
In order to qualify as a foreign lawyer for p~ of'Rule 5.4• • penon mud
be' • member of. rccopiz.c:d legal profession in • foreip jurisdicdaa. The tam
"profession" itself Ecncndly c:onnc.u:s the atrrib..des ofc.'ducaci0li and formal train-
ing. licensure to prac;tice, standards. and • systan of sanc:tians for violll1ioas of'
the standards. I" There ncwrlhcJess is no.arbihry definiticn of"lawya"" or 0I1cpI
profession" that must be applied to determine wbeda • person in • fGRip juris-
diction is a lawyer. The determination essentially is facmaI. rcquirinl considera-
tion of the jurisdiction's IepJ S1rUc:twe as. well as the naiure of the lICI'YiI::eI QISoo
tomarily performed II)' the persOns in qucstio:n- . .
Generally speaking. • person who is ,pccially Inlincd lQ provide advic:e on the
laws of the foreign jurisdiction and to represei1I clienlS in 1m . . . system. and is
licensed by the jurisdiction to do so. will qualify as • foreip lawyer. Before
ac:ccpting a foreign lawyer as a parmer. the responsible Iawyas of' a U.s. law film
(-)
~ ' ... -4
ens.
must take reasonable steps 10 ensure that the fomp lawyer Is • member of'. n:c-
ogniz.c:d lepl profession 8~ to in Ihc pncticc of'law in 1hc foreip
jurisdiction and 1hat the arrIIIfIgcment complies willi tile law of the Jllrisdicdons
where the firm prK'dces.1S For example. fore. . lawyers admiaed to praclice ill
~
Iii. SpirU Df Pu611c Se",/ce:" A BI.eprlll' /0' ,.. RdllNllI"6 0/ lA""..,
Pro/WionDlimI., 1986 ABA 0:M.ass1aN ON PIlOFESSIONAUSU 10.11 and soun:es cited
tberein. Dean Pound cites IS d!ree anributcs ofa profession: orpnizatian.lcamias. . .
a splrle of public service. &I. ROSCOE PouND. THE LAWYB FlOW AImQuny To
MoI:aN n..a 4010(19.53).
I'. Slate and local bar ethics committees hIVe Imposed limilar obUpIions on
lawyers in fIlmS 1hal admit fGRip lawyers to pannership. s.r..
&g.. A.ssociadon of'the
Bar of1be Cd)' of'Ncw VOlt eonmunee 011 Pn:I(. and Judicial Ettaics formal 0,. II·
72 (commcntinlon lenerilead clesiplions offorelp lawyers and notin& IbIt wbeIber
New Yark lawyers may fonn a parmcrsbip relationship widl • foreip law fil1ll
., requires a factual Inquily "whether the nining of and ethic:aI srandards applicable to r)
\.
the fGRip lawyer are comparaillc to those fot 111ft Amcric:aD lawyer" SUICb 1hal the for-
-"':::'f
..... :.
,.
..
.- .-
""='
I 1)
I
I
7 Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility 01-423
!
Sweden, Japan. Great Britain and odaer European Union countries would satisfy
thc:se requiremenu and have bcca fOUlld by bar association ethics &ommitter:s to
! qualify for pu1nCtSbip in u.s. law fum.s. 11
i, It: however, professionals in. forei&n jurisdiclion are not members of a recos- .
!
niu:d legal profession ill that jurisdiaion., Ihc professionals should, in our opinion.
i be considered non lawyers rather 1han lawyers for purposes of Model Rule 5.4.
Hence, they would not be eligible for panncrsbip in a U.s. law firm. For example,
qualification as forci&n lawyer for purposes of Rule '.4 ordinarii), should be
accorded memben of the profession of nocII' (CqunrOODl lawyer) or ctNUell
jllritJiqrM (transactional Of business lawyer). buI miPt not be acconIcd members
of the profession of lttJIario or notary, • substantially different fUnc:lioaary in most
c:ivillaw jurisdic:tions.''1 In some eounuies. morcovcr,1htn II1II}' be no rccopUud
c:ign lawyer is • "lawyer" within the meaniD,c of DR 3-103(A) or Ibc New Yoric Code
r of Professional RClp~sibili1y); UlIIh s.. Bar Elides Advisaly 0,. 96-14 (J8IWII\Iy
24, 15197) (UUIh lawyer may fonn a pIJ1nerSbip or associall: willi lepl pnclitianas
I from a forcip country who are authorize4 by Ihc laws of the fORil" country to
I cOl. in !he funCiionaJ equiYa!cnl of U.S.lcpl pracdcc).
16. See New yurt SL1dc Bar Ass. CGmmiua: 011 Prof. EIbicI Op. 6SI (1994) (under
I
DR's 2-102(C). 2-1OZ(D).l-103(A). is is permissible far SVIedish Jaw fum to farm pII't-
nc:rship wid! New yurt flnn. subject to ccmpliulce willi law): New Yodc SIIIIC Bar Ass.
Commillcc on Prof. Ethics Op. 646 (1m) (approvina par1ftCr.Ihip with Japmese lawyer
.,.
. ... ....
I .'_} pncticiJt& in New Yurt); New YOIt SIItc S. Ass. ConuniI:Iec on,fa'DL Edlics Op. 542
(1982) (approylnl partnersbip witb British solicilar to practice in New YOJII:) •
I
' ~
Philadelphia Bar Ass. Prof: Guidance Comm.iIIee GuidIna: Op. No. 92-19, 1992 WI.
40.5939 (December 1992) (Pcnn.s,ylvlnill law.ycrs may farm pIIrtDenIrips with lawyers
admiacd to prac:lic:e ClUlSidc U.s.); Iowa Supreme Court Bd.. ofPlVf. EIhic:s and Conduct
I
: Op. 97-25 (MardI 3, 1991) (Iowa lawyer may practice law ill. pII1DerShip dud includes
!
Enllish solicitors praClicina in EngiaDd and Wales). umptll'e wll. Viqinie up
~ 0,. 1743 (April 13, 2000) (imp'oper far a Vqinia lawyer to farm parD'Iership
with a foreip legal c:onsuhanl DOl admillcd to pIIdic:e in Ihe u.s.; lawyer liccmed ill
another countl)' considcrc:d anon-lawyer" far PIl1'pOSa of VU'pnia'lII UnauthoriD:cl
Practice of Law Rules. VI, S. Ct. R., pi. 6, f I). So Ql60 Laurel S. Terr,y, All
i
"
""I~ _ _ .. •
.J
..
. ....... - .
r!
-.~
II. The Model Rules would noc. however, bar • amtnldual rdaIicIasbip willa a scpo
UIIIC orpniutlem ia whidl thc fon:ip profcssioaala wae putnas .... could, wiIh
appropriate disdosun:s, abo be partly owned by U.s. IIW)'a'IIIS a 1aw-n::1a&cd entity.
Sft Rule 5.7. Law;yers also may use nonJawycrs III "'paraprofessionllls" to assisa them
in the pcdOl'JllllllCe of lepl sc:rviccs lIS 10111 as the 11OIIIa"')'Cn an: supc:rrisrIrd appro-
pilllel)'. Sc~ Rule 50S emL IIJ (nol lWislinl U1UNthorizecI pracdct far a lawyer to
employ "1hI': sc:rvic:cs of paraprofessionals and Ide....lJICS) functions to diem. as kina as
thc lawyer ~ Ihc deleplCd wort and n:I.IIins rcspoasibilily f. their work"" lIS
provided in Rule 53). "
19. Wholly . . . from admission of famp 1aW)WS to ~ ~ c&nI
confidenl:cs is a II'II\Ior concem in any ~ IepI . . . . . . . . ID _ dvil
law c:ourdries, Ihe atIOI11e)'-diall privilese applies difJ'crend.r. and l1li)" _ apply III aU in
$OlDC ciraJmsIances when: it would be applicable in Ihe United s.e.. ,.,.• 10 CIOI1IInUIJi...
cadons willi iD-house. corponte counsd.. Sft pllll'tJll.1 DaistcYashidII,. 11M Appllt:ablllly
0/ l/rt AIl~limf Pml. 10 COlJrlr..mi.cDIlC/IV willi Ftllflpl.qol Pro./U6kNtD1s,
66 FORDHAM L. RI:v. 209. 227 (1997); Joseph PndI, TIttt PIInIIII,"'" 0/ II. AllOrntIy-
Cli,,., P,lvll,p fIN' I".Hou.r~ Coua,' 01 Ih, 1"'~'lfIlllo'" IANI: "OI~CI;". 1M
Compmry" OJrIid«IIIW IIffonnatJtm. 2ON.W-l. bon\. LAw a: Bus, 145, 159(1999>-
20. Rule 5.1 sIIIIa:
(a) Ii. pail'IDCr ill a law finn shall make Je8.SODIbIc cft'_ to CIISUiI'8 dill the
fum bIs ill effect _ _ pins reasonable IISSUI'8DCe . . . III IIwyas in Ihc finD
confom to Ibc Rules afProl'cssioftal ConducL
(b) Ii. lawyer haYilll direct supervisal)' autborit.Y cm:r uodler lawyer &bill
make rcasonahIe cff'ans to cnsun: ahaIthe oIher lawyer confOnDS 10 Ihc Rules of
Plofessicul Conduct
(c:) A JaW)'fIt shell be responsible for another lawyer's viole!.ioa oflbc Rules of
Professioaal Coaduct if:
(I) the lawyer ocdcD or. with bowledse of the spccifie c:oraduc:t, ratifies
the CCIIDdIac:t imfolved; or
(2) the 1aw;F is a p8I1DCl' in Ihc law firm in wbich IhI: odtcr lawyer pnIt>
tic:cs, or bas dln:cC supervisory lUlhorfty tIW:I Ihe: ocher 1aw7er. and Jcnowa of
the c:onduct at a lime when ill COII!CqUcnCa can be avoided « mitipled but
faill to 1akc rasonaIIIe rcmediaillClion.
\~ 'J.
j
~
~
~
~
~.' -
. ..._}•
"
.. I
Ii
9 Committee on Ethics and Professional ResponsibiHty 01-423
21. We apply the tenD "rules ofprofcssiaaal conduct'" 10 maD Ihe Model Rules,. if
in effect lit • jurisdiction, 1M if IICIC, odIcr cIenomiftaled cdDcaI II1II disc:ipliDary . .
dards in c«ect in U.s. ud foreip jurisdktioas, the rules in which apply to the c0n-
duct in questioa. We do nDC, boweYer, IIkIres:s bere die difticuIa choiec of law _ _
that arise when delcrminins whicb jurisdiaions' clbic:aIlUId discipliDary stIIIIdards
apply to lawyers cnpaed in • multinational lepl DIIl'IcI. S. Model Rule l.S(b).
22. See. e.e.. Virginia Unaulborized Pracdcc: on..
w Commiaec Op. No. 195 (April
Il, 1000); RaTAm.tDn', npt'tIllCIfC 12, .24, Topic 2. Title B f 1, .lllrUdktltIIfIJI
Scope oft. Prot:tb ofLtrw by D LtrwyIt' 24 (mddadaI wodt in I jurisdicdoa where a
lawyer is IlOl admiUcd to practic:e dial is related to I Icpl mau.er on wbicb Ihe lawyer
worlcs from an offace in • jurisdic:tian when: Ibc lawyer is admiIIed does DDt iIm:IIvc
.... . . /...
. ; . .....
~~
"
"
Statement of Costs
T. Andrew Ragusin
--
~.'
i· ,
t>\. ~~.
\)/
.~,\.;~~
~ ....
RITE AID iii
~ /' --It's nor iust a store. It's a solution~
WOLf CAMERA 013&3 (303)-592-7991
1&th St. Mall INTERNET ~ REFILLS'!'
www.RlteAld.com
1363 11 7168 4124/2002 621e3 . . _.d ~¥ O:i!"q;SIct"....t':r.1:.
~~-----
c.PETTY ,(:AaHi') :.
t;
:::..'. -'
.. .'::. '- '.. ...
,0 for customer servIce
...
i.
6/20/2003
Translation
Michael Amon
$30.00
Case Numbers:
01UPL035
OlUPLll
6559 Jungfrau Way
Evergreen, CO 80439
July 24,2003
Susan L. Berry
Administrative Assistant
(303) 893-8121 X 307
Colordo Supreme Court
Attorney Regulation Counsel
The charge for this translation (letter from to Christine Weirauch to John Gleason reo
Andrew Ragusin) is $30.00.
Please send a check payable to Michele Amon to the above address. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michele Amon
(303) 670-3149
i ' •
9/26/2003
Maria Halloran
Translation
01UPL035
$ 280.00
February 28 1h, 2002
Dorothy -
Here are the receipts we discussed on the phone - pi case reimburse me, directly. The
expense~, were necessary to purchase disposable cameras and then developing the film.
I've higr lighted my actual cost for each item -
\l
People v T. Andrew Ragusin, case #'s 01-PDJ-OOII & OI-PDJ-03S.
Y~1f ~
wit!, any questions, ext: 304 - thanks
.2;~
\I':;'~:"'I' :~F"'?;·J.i;.',?h - .t'.(!'~ rJ..·.':d.~\, ,~,::jF\
l1~f'~ ~ ~I ,!~.~ iU
It's not just CI store. It's a solution::.
.fiJJjj
RITE"AIDB
not just store. It's a
It's a solution:
t
INTERNET ~ REFILLS\!!
www.RiteAId.com INTERNET~
I
REFlllS~
D
,..,... ,.d oy
'
Qafllgmre.rom. n ~
fI
i-Jf"~4~ t w~~:~.I!!~!~~~SOJ~jD
Store #06186 .
750 16TH ST. !4ALl FEB 2 g 2002 FEB (] 13 :2232
Store #06186
~~ 750 16TH ST. MALL
Cl(#Q~~.
DENVER, CO 80202 Q
(303) 534-7824 Cr( #:::.:::"-t1l(. DENVER, CO B0202
Register #4 Transaction #572662
'-.: vr
~ 1\'\
(303) 534-7824
::::::"",
Cashier #61869151 2/20/02 lO:lBAM ~ ~ Reg1 star fl.? Tr'ansact 1on #139826 <l t;;)
Cash1er #61862307 2/21/02 2:17PM h t,
~d,~~~~~~,~ .AR OUTDOOla~:~~~1~'J~,~~t ~ ~ ~ alI~.:nI!l1lP.J 22.63 T~ ~
i'oON:rSAtE)~~Ri9 . g,) , ~. ....
1!!EVfAtfllA1'ER- rIfER 1.09 T '1 ~ 1 Items Subtotal 22.63 '- ~
Tax 1.62 '0 (',)
11r'~~11'lC;t"l"'"'
3 IteMs SubtolaJ 9.37. ~~.l':U~;>~!
fax .67 *PAIO BV VISA'" .~~.~
: Total 10.04 VISA card • #XXXXXXXXXXXX8902
*PAID BV VIS~* 10.04 Exp 9/30/03 App # ~IAN to /
VISA card * #XKXXXXXXXXXXB902 Ref /I 053110 /
Exp 9/30/03 App # AUTO Card Present
Ref /I 490800 TendE'red 24.25
Card Present Cash Change .00
Tendered 10.04
Cash Change .00
Internet Refills at RiteAld.com
powered by drugstore. com .
1-800-RITEAIO for customer servIce
Internet Refills at RiteAid.com
powered by ,jrugstore.com
1-800-RITEAIO fo' customer service
/'
.,'>'l';;~1'.v~L~,6l' ! 11#$ )*+,-./0123456789:i<=>? EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\J'
'" .
.,...
Tax .79 v 801 16 TH DENVER, CO
it df&f!!)! 11.88 THANK YOU
PAID BV vn;A'" , ,1titl'Z"SS' r--
VISA card it m:xxxxxXXXXXX89UZ .. ..... FOR FASTER SERVICE, CALL IN YOUR ."
Appearance Fee
Transcript Not Ordered
0.5 NO-Hours Transcript Not Ordered 40.00 20,00
Hours
December 15, 2004
; I
I
rei
(~UI
TRANSPERFEC1
Bill To: Requested By:
Project Notes:
PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS
~--~----~----~-------------
Please remit payment to: Wire Transfer Detaiis:
TransPerfect Translations International Inc. Citibank. N.A.
Attn.: Accounts Receivable AlC #: 06541211
Three Park Avenue, 39th Floor ABA Routing #: 021000089
New York. NY 10016 SWIFT CODE: CITIUS33
Tax ID #: 13-3686771
Please reference the Contract # tpt211022 and Invoice # 249837 with your remittance.
Interest will be charged at the rate of 1.5% per month (or the maximum allowed by law) for accounts more than 30 days past due
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL. INC
TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL HQ· 3 PARK AVENUE. 39TH FLOOR. NEW YORK, NY 10015
T +1212589.5555 F +12125891059' E-MAIL [email protected]
WV'IW TRANSPERFECT COM 1
1/1
ClCberkmate. ]fur.
EIN #84-0763803 DATE INVOICE #
438 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80204
/20/ 0H),,/
(303) 778-7630 Fax (303) 778-1310
[email protected]
143816 ,/
BILL TO:
SUBPOENA
ATTORNEY REGULATION 19/10 7: 0pr·1
15 BROADWAY, #1800 AFFIANT: 3HARP
DENVER CO 30 02
Nt::t i5 - Due 2 41 10
COLORADO V T. A. RAGUSIN
SUPREME COLORADO - 09UPL127, 09UPL140, 9UPL142
T. ANDREW RAGUSIN
9 5 6 4 KALAlJ!ERE CT
DOUGLAS COUN1'¥ f CO
I
, .
r. RhDREi R~GUSl~
9~64 K~LARER£ CT
»IG~L~~tS RAh~H CO
~ght: 1 L~s
~GGr Ret ~ f(~OOSH"
J
.l C K
& STENSTROM, LLC
cCJtlijied ·jliOJdlialtd !tepOJlteJtj
INVOICE
1- 2010 DA TE INVOICE #
3131 South Vaughn Way, Suite 224
Aurora, Colorado 80014
ATICnNEY 3/9/20101 15453,.,
(720) 449-0329 FEIN 84-1566167
3/9120lP I
Aurora, Colorado 80014
l545A
(720) 449-0329 FEIN 84-1566167
I
/
1/11{5 ~ :;.r
1
March 5,2010
Once served would you please send the Affidavit of Service to:
~
KIM E. IKELER
Assistant Regulation Counsel
303-866-6440
KEI/kh
Enclosures
1560 Broadway, Suite! 800 - Denver, Colorado 80202 .. (303) 866-6400 .. Toll free (877) 888-1370 -Website .. www.coJoradosupremecQurt.com