Appendix — Rose v. Supreme Court of Colorado
Supreme Court brief1986
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
hd eee ore
a vy* i
MATEO YG burs, We
85-1188 VI. 2] 1, & D
FOO. sncccenauinn
{ SAH «15 1988
sre
INTHE | CN ent
ae
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1985
MICHAEL THOMAS ROSE,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondent.
APPENDICES TO
PETITION FOR WRiT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF COLORADO
ARTHUR B. SPITZER ROBERT F. HANLEY*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION RONALD H. NEMIROW
1400 20th Street, N.W. MORRISON & FOERSTER
Washington, D.C. 20036 1670 Broadway, No. 2100
(202) 457-0800 Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 831-1100
JOHN H. SCHENEFELD
D. STEPHEN MATHIAS JOHN V. McDERMOTT
MILLBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY JENSEN, BYRNE, PARSONS &
International Bank Building RUH, P.C.
1825 Eye Street, N.W. 730 17th Street, No. 338
Washington, D.C. 20006 Denver, Colorad» 80202
(202) 835-7500 (303) 629-5858
Counsel for Petitioner
Michael Thomas Rose
*Counsel of Record
January 15, 1986
orr
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
Table of Contents
Orders of the Court Below
A. Order of the Colorado
Supreme Court Denying
in Whole Rose's
Petition for Relief
CORE Bly SOMO R i 0 tee ee ees la
Opinions, Orders, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law Rendered by Courts
and Administrative Agencies
B. Letter from David W.
Brezina, Clerk of The
Colorado Supreme Court,
to Michael T. Rose
(October 27, 1982)
(refusing to rescind the
rules and orders of
GOME LGC EOALCY) oc ck ee eae 3a
™
Report of the Bar
Committee Pursuant
t6 ©C:2.6.F. Bule 2iz
([DOGCORNROE 27, LETS) 6c cee gs 6a
Dd. Order of the Supreme
Court of the State
of Colorado Denying
Rose Admission to the
Colorado Bar
Gi a Pee. fas Peer err l4a
(1)
act
—
Al, a ail aed
Table of Contents
- Master's Report in Which
the Special Master
Recommended that Rose
be Admitted to the
Colorado Bar
ue 2 Pr l4a
e. Order No. 2 of Special
Master (January 21, 1970)..... 30a
Other Appended Materials
. Letter from Barnard
Houtchens to the
Colorado Supreme Court
fpeeemmer ©, 1976).......... 32a
H. Reporter's Transcript,
In re Admission of Rose,
Colorado State Board of
Law Examiners
Beeae oe, &976 hearing...... 34a
ie Reporter's Transcript,
In re Admission of Rose,
Colorado State Board
of Law Examiners,
June 4, 1976 hearing........ 88a
os Letter from Richard F.
Hennessey to the
Colorado Board of
Law Examiners
(September 24, 1976)........ 109a
(11)
N.
Table of Contents
Report to the Colorado
Bar Committee from
Roger Cisneros (undated).... 125a
Affidavit of Michael T. Rose
Coe BA, BOs hes dees Oise 126a
Memoranda from Justice
Groves to the Colorado
Supreme Court
(December 8, 1976 and
SORBET Ds BOT UES as ew ees 133a
Letter from Michael
Rodak, Jr. to Justice
Groves (January 22, 1979)... 135a
Letter from Justice
Groves to Rose
CFR GM Dy BOWE sss 6k eek Ree 138a
Letter from Justice
Groves to Michael
Rodak, Jr.
LAERL Af < ABTOR Ss 6 ec woke RS l4la
Letter from Michael
Rodak, Jr. to Rose
(November 27, 1978)......... 150a
Affidavit of Jordan
Hochstadt and
Richard S. Strauss
Cou 22, Zee bs teow ass 152a
(iii)
~
> rr)
a
=
Table of Contents
In re Admission of Rose,
50 U.S.L.W. 3714
(ORES OD, AOE «es Ween weve l6la
Stevens Criticizes Burger,
O'Connor for Attacking Bar
Applicant, The Washington
Post, March 9, 1982......... 167a
High Court Justices
Differ on Admitting
Lawyers to the Bar,
New York Times,
roe: Bs As 6 eR eA kK OO l17la
Burger Fails to Block
Coloradans Admission,
The Denver Post,
Sy A 6 a eee 8 ek ce ee 175a
Two Justices Swap Heated
Remarks Over Routine
Bar Admission Process,
The National Law Journal,
gs Gp) Re + Se a 183a
High Court Admits Lawyer
Over Objections,
Colorado Springs Sun,
Sey fa a oo ek ak ae 6 88 188a
Lawyer 'Offended', Raps
Burger Action, Denver Post,
Ge 20, BOE sa ae i ek ecw e eee 193a
(iv)
Table of Contents
Page
Affidavit of Donald C.
Odegard, Sr.
(October 30, 1984)...-.--e2: 198a
Respondent's Memorandum
in Opposition to
Michael T. Rose's
Motion for "Partial
Summary Judgment"
(May 13, . . ) eee ee 206a
Motion to Withdraw Rules
and Orders of
Confidentiality
(October 18, 19O2Z).. se cece 235a
Affidavit of Robert Cc.
Moore (June 10, 1968)... 02s 240a
U.S. CONST. amend eee? ee 245a
U.S. CONST. amend XIV, $ 1...- 246a
°28 U.S.C. § 1257(3) (1970).... 247a
Colo. R. Civ. P. i.) ee 248a
Letter from Justice
Groves to Congressman
Charles H. Wilson
(October 26, 1977)... cceeces 2844
U.S. CONST. amend I....--++:+:> 286a
(v)
APPENDIX A
Supreme Court
State of Colorado
In Re:
Application of Michael T. Rose for
Admission to the Bar of the State of Colorado
Upon consideration of the Petition for Relief, Memorandum
in Support thereof and Appendices thereto filed herein, and
now being sufficiently advised in the premises,
It Is This Day Ordered that the Petition for Relief shall be,
and the same hereby is, Denied.
la
—-
Se ger
a al) 7
ae aati hnagter= o
Tie 24
pre
i
i cae _ a gy er =
ae eS
rey
=a es er a mh cee
ok
Sie ie
Cc:
BY THE COURT, EN BANC, OCTOBER 17, 1985
Robert F. Hanley
John V. McDermott
MORRISON & FOERSTER
3100 Columbia Plaza
1670 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202
Alan Ogden, Executive Director
Board of Continuing Legal & Jud. Ed.
190 East 9th Ave., Suite 410
Denver, CO 80203
2a
APPENDIX B
Clerk’s Office
Supreme Court
State Of Colorado
Denver 80203
October 27, 1982
Michael T. Rose
7417 Northside Drive
Suite B
Charleston, SC 29405
RE: Request for Release from Confidentiality
Dear Mr. Rose:
Please be advised that your request for release from rules
and orders of confidentiality regarding your application, denial
of admission and admission to the Bar of the State of Colorado
has been considered by the Supreme Court, en banc. I have
been authorized to advise you as follows:
(1) On January 22, 1979, the Clerk of the United States
Supreme Court sent to this Court a letter requesting
information on the denial of your admission to the
Bar of this Court.
(2) On March 5, 1979, Justice James K. Groves sent
you a letter stating that such information would not
be released without your consent.
3a
—— *
N
hs
(3)
(4)
(5)
(8)
(9)
On March 16, 1979, you wrote a letter to justice
Groves consenting to the release of this background
information. A copy of this letter is attached
hereto.
On April 17, 1979, Justice Groves transmitted this
background information, with the consent of all
parties to the proceedings except the Congressman,
to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. A copy of
this letter and list of exhibits is attached.
Should you require another copy of these exhibits
you miay receive same upon payment of the copying
cost of $50.25.
That you may use these exhibits as you see fit.
That the Court will not grant permission to waive
the rules and orders of confidentiality other than as
set forth herein.
That no material other than that referred to in (4)
above has been released to the U.S. Supreme Court
or any other person by this Court or its Boards or
Committees.
That should you appear at the public hearing on the
proposed Rules Governing Admission To The Bar
set for November 5, 1982 at 9:00 a.m., you will not
be permitted to discuss your individual case as such
is not relevant to this hearing.
4a
If you wish to have the copies reterred to in (4) above, please
send your check payable to the Clerk of the Colorado Supreme
Court and same will be forwarded to you by return mail. ;
Sincerely,
David W. Brezina
Clerk of the Supreme Court
DWB:|im
cc: State Board of Law Examiners
5a
APPENDIX C
Before the Supreme Court
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
IN THE MATTER OF
THE APPLICATION OF
MICHAEL THOMAS ROSE
a/k/a MICHAEL T. ROSE
REPORT OF THE BAR COMMITTEE
PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. RULE 212
INTRODUCTION
By application dated and received December 24, 1975,
Michael T. Rose applied for admission to the Bar of Colorado,
as a Class C applicant pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 202(8).
Mr. Rose,(sometimes referred to hereinafter as ‘‘applicant’’)
is amember of the Bar of California (admitted August 8, 1975)
and of the Bar of Pennsylvania (admitted November 19, 1973
and suspended in April, 1974).
The applicant took the written examination for admission to
the Colorado Bar, held in February, 1976, on which he received
a passing grade.
While Mr. Rose’s application for admission was pending
several complaints bearing upon his ethical, moral and profes-
sional qualifications were received by the Supreme Court and
the Colorado State Board of Law Examiners.
Following receipt of the complaints the Bar Committee con-
ducted extensive inquiry into the applicant’s moral and ethical
6a
fitness and pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rules 216 and 217 conducted
uearings at which the applicant and his counsel were present.
Consideration has included: review of the extensive appl’cation
file, including the above mentioned complaints, the large
number of letters of recommendation, and the several detailed
written statements submitted by the applicant; two ap-
pearances before the Committee on April 30, 1976 and June 4,
1976, by the applicant accompanied by counsel during which
he offered testimony under oath which was recorded by a cer-
tified shorthand reporter; personal appearances of Andrew
Blair and Douglas Bragg, attorneys on behalf ot Mr. Rose, and
of Glenn G. Saunders and Willard S. Snyder, attorneys, and
Lorraine Handrow, secretary and office manager, all of the
Denver law firm of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, P.C.;
review of the results of inquiries into aspects of the complaints
conducted by Senator Roger Cisneros, Committee member,
and by Richard F. Hennessey, Committee Counsel! for this
Court; and responses to inquiries from the Pennsylvania and
California Bars regarding the applicant’s professional status.
After fully considering the matter of Mr. Rose’s ethical and
moral fitness at its September 24, 1976 and December 3, 1976
meetings, the Committee makes the foilowing findings, conclu-
sions and reccommendations regarding the applicant's admis-
sion to the Bar of Colorado.
FINDINGS
I
1. In his written application to the Colorado Bar, Mr. Rose
Stated in response to item 18 that he had the ‘present right to
practice law’’ and was ‘‘qualified’’ in California and Penn-
sylvania.
2. Correspondence received from the Disciplinary Board of
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, dated October 4, 1976 and
October 25, 1976 indicates that, although Mr. Rose initially
registered there under No. 18353, he was suspended from the
7a
Bar of Pennsylvania in April, 1974, and has remained suspend-
ed from that Bar since that time for failure to comply with Pen-
asylvania Supreme Court rule regarding annual registration of
attorneys.
I]
1. By letter dated April 9, 1976 Mr. Rose contacted U.S. Air
Force Colonel Allan L. Zbar, at Lowry Air Force Base in
Colorado, in an effort to seek admission to the Judge Advocate
General’s Department Reserve.
2. This letter was on the official stationery of the law firm of
Saunders, Snyder, Ross and Dickson, P.C., where Mr. Rose
was employed at the time as a law clerk, and contained the
following statement: ‘‘now that I am a civilian attorney prac-
ticing law in Denver . . .’’. The letter was signed by Mr. Rose
under the firm’s professional name and over his full name.
3. The form of the letter on a Colorado law firm stationery
and the contents of the letter clearly misrepresented Mr. Rose’s
status to be a lawyer admitted to practice in Colorado.
4. Such misrepresentation was intentional.
III.
1. Several other matters involving Mr. Rose’s misrepresenta-
tion of his status as a Colorado attorney in the course of his
representation of clients in the military justice system came to
the Committee’s attention.
2. In the course of these contacts military justice officials
were left with the impression that Mr. Rose was a Colorado at-
torney.
8a
mt a : i VE
pee nes
< 2 : 7
‘eae 2
SE gi tate
oa, Ole
b) eal
uy _ =
“= S FGA «
6 ar
e yi
y,
2
:
3. Mr. Rose’s participation as an attorney in the military
justice system does nct depend on his status as a Colorado at-
torney.
4. During the time period involved in these matters, Mr.
Rose was a resident of Denver, Colorado.
5. Under the circumstances it is not unreasonable to con-
clude that erroneous impressions regarding Mr. Rose’s status
as a Colorado attorney were due to the nature of the contacts,
the different eligibility requirements for participation as an at-
torney in the military justice system and possible confusion due
to Mr. Rose’s Denver residence.
i.
1. During the period from 1974 through 1976, Mr. Rose and
several of his former Air Force Academy schoolmates were in-
volved in a joint business venture with another schoolmate, a
Ronald Gollehon, for the purpose of investing in real estate.
Mr. Gollehon is also a Colorado resident.
2. Mr. Gollehon appears to have been the organizational
principal and financial manager in these investment activities.
3. The legal forms of the business entities under which the
participants were associated and under which investments were
made are not clear and are currently a matter of legal dispute.
4. Another matter currently in legal dispute is whether the
legal requirements regulating these investment activities were
met.
5. During the late 1975 and early 1976 a controversy arose
between Mr. Gollehon and the rest of the investors, including
Mr. Rose, concerning the nature and the status of the invest-
ment made on their behalf by Mr. Gollehon.
6. During the same time period, Mr. Gollehon was providing
some significant financial backing to Group Legal Services of
America, Inc., of which Mr. Rose was president.
7. At approximately the same time the controversies arose
concerning the above real estate investments, another and
separate controversy arose between Mr. Gollehan and Mr.
Rose concerning Mr. Gollehon’s apparent failure to keep cer-
tain financial commitments to Group Legal Services.
8. On or about January 15, 1976 Mr. Rose commenced
employment as a law clerk with the Denver Law firm of
Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, P.C.,
9. By letter dated February 24, 1976, Mr. Rose wrote the
other participants in the real estate investment venture. The let-
ter contained the following statements:
. . .because apparently I am the only ‘‘partner’’ in Colorado
and the only lawyer in the group, our collective interest might
best be served by Gulf Coast Properties and its members being
represented by me and my law firm (Saunders, Snyder, Ross &
Dickson, P.C.) here in Denver. Three of the partners have re-
quested or suggested that we do so.
If the partners want us te represent them, we would do so on
these terms. The firm, with my having primary responsibility,
would evaluate and analyze the facts regarding what has hap-
pened to our monies, would report to the known members of
the ‘‘partnership’’ the status thereof and our options and
remedies; and would take whatever remedial actions agreed
upon by the ‘‘partnership’’ as being in our best interests.
Besides determining what has happened to and how to retrieve
Our monies, there are several other questions regarding our
Status (e.g. What are our legal relationships? Do we have a
‘‘partnership?’’) that we will attempt to answer.
10a
To represent the partnership, the firm will require a retainer,
normally of $500, against which actual costs and fees for at-
torney time wouid be credited. My time is billed by the firm at
$35/hour ($60/hour for military cases.)
I suggest that everyone send to the firm $75 for me and the
firm to represent your interests in this matter. I will pay my
share in donated time, working as an attorney on the case.
When the firm has received a total of $425, we will formally
begin to represent you coordinating our efforts with the SEC’s.
10. This letter was written on the official firm stationery of
the law firm of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, P.C., and
was signed by Mr. Rose under the firm’s professional name
and over his own full name.
11. Aside from the question of the impropriety of such a
solicitation, the background, the form and the substance of
this letter created the reasonable impression that Mr. Rose was
a member of the Bar of Colorado.
12. Mr. Rose wrote numerous subsequent letters in similar
form on law firm stationery to the other participants, to parties
aligned against the other participants, and to third persons
which created the reasonable impression that he was a member
of the Bar of Colorado.
13. In the course of personal contacts with other persons in
regard to this controversy, Mr. Rose also created the
reasonable impression that he was a member of the Bar of
Colorado.
14. Mr. Rose did not take appropriate steps, reasonable.
under the circumstances, to disclose that he was not a member
lla
of the Bar of Colorado in business contacts, with other parties
and attorneys, which related to this controversy.
15. Mr.Rose did not take appropriate steps, reasonable
under the circumstances, to disclose to the other participants in
the real estate investment ventures, to whom he had offered
legal representation, the existence and nature of his other con-
troversy with Mr. Gollehon arising out of their (Rose’s and
Gollehon’s) business relationship in Group Legal Services of
America, and the possible existence of conflicting interests in
his representing their mutual interests regarding their in-
vestments while advocating his own interest regarding Group
Legal Services of America.
16. Mr. Rose without clear authorization of each named
plaintiff authorized the filing of suit against Mr. Gollehon
regarding the real estate investments.
17. During April, 1976 Mr. Rose, without the authorization
of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, P.C., commissioned on
their behalf another attorney, Richard L. Daly, to file the suit,
referred to in the preceding paragraph, for which services Mr.
Daly billed Saunders, Snyder. Ross & Dickson, P.C. pursuant
to instructions from Mr. Rose.
18. Mr. Rose’s employment as a law clerk was terminated by
Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, P.C. on or about April 30,
1976.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee concludes that the applicant has engaged ina
pattern of conduct evidencing: irresponsibility in professional
matters in that he was suspended from the Bar of Penn-
sylvania, for a period of over two years, for his failure to com- |
ply with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s attorney registra-
tion rule and misrepresenting his status in this regard on his ap-
l2a
plicatioa to the Bar of Colorado; continued lack of candor in
business and professional matters concerning his not being a
member of the Bar of Colorado; continued violation of
reasonable rules of conduct in his capacity as a law clerk and in
work on legal matters in his association with a Colorado law
firm. Such conduct is inconsistent with the standards set forth
in C.R.C.P. Rule 212.
The Committee has considered the fact that the applicant is a
person whose first admission to practice was in 1973. In con-
sidering this matter the Committee has concluded that the in-
clinations evidenced by the applicant’s conduct are likely to be
carried over by the applicant in the practice of law.
RECOMMENDATION
At its December 3, 1976 meeting five members of this Com-
mittee (Donald S. Stubbs, Jacob L. Sherman, Warren L.
Turner, Cover Mendenhall and Bernard Houtchens) recom-
mended against admission of the applicant to the Bar of Col-
orado. One member of the Committee, Senator Roger
Cisneros, recommended the applicant’s admission.
Dated this 27th day of December, 1976.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard Houtchens, CHAIRMAN
APPENDIX D
3n the Supreme Court
IN THE STATE OF COLORADO
In the Matter of the
Application of
MICHAEL THOMAS ROSE
For Admission to the Bar
ORDER
The recommendation of the Bar Committee of the Colorado
State Board of Law Examiners dated Decemer 27, 1976, is
hereby approved, and IT IS ORDERED that the application of
MICHAEL THOMAS ROSE for admission to the bar be and
hereby is denied.
DONE BY THE COURT EN BANC, JANUARY 6, 1977.
APPENDIX E
In re the Application of:
MICHAEL T. ROSE, for
admission to the Bar of the
State of Colorado.
MASTERS REPORT
APPEARANCES:
HOCHSTADT, STAW & STRAUSS, P.C.
Jordan Hochstadt
Richard S. Strauss
Attorneys for Applicant
l4a
a ae
1 Pee
Pn
APD SEER cD.
i
Tot
oe ber
a 5
*
.
Ses
a _
'
a
<a
an wey
=
LINDA DONNELLY, Special Counsel for the Supreme Court
Philip A. Harley, Assistant
INTRODUCTION
Applicant, Michael T. Rose, received passing marks in the
February 1976, Bar Examination. However, because com-
plaints were filed with the State Board of Law Examiners, the
Bar Committee conducted proceedings to investigate the com-
plaints. Pursuant to such proceedings, the Bar Committee fil-
ed a report recommending to the Supreme Court that applicant
not be admitted to practice law in Colorado. The Supreme
Court approved the report in an order dated January 6, 1977.
A petition for rehearing was denied.
In 1978, applicant filed a petition for admission, asserting,
inter alia, that even if he lacked the moral and ethical qualifica-
tions to practice law in Colorado in 1976, that he now possesses
those qualifications. Amended, and second amended applica-
tions were filed. Special counsel was appointed to conduct an
investigation and make a report to the Supreme Court. Follow-
ing receipt of the report on December 19, 1979, James Bunch
was appointed Special Master to conduct proceedings and
report his findings and conclusions. Mr. Bunch recused himself
and on May 5, 1980, Harry S. Silverstein, Jr. was appointed
Speciai Master in his stead. After preliminary proceedings, as
hereinafter set forth, a final hearing was held on February 16,
17, and 18, 1981. Following the filing of briefs, this report is
submitted.
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
Pleadings: The Amended Petition for Admission filed by ap-
plicant on or about May 31, 1979, was treated as a complaint.
The Report of Special Counsel, as amended, was treated as an
answer and counterclaim.
1a
THE PETITION
Paragraphs 1-3 set forth the denial of applicant’s admission
to the bar and allege that, because of asserted deficiencies, the
denial was in violation of C.R.C.P. 217, and of the due process
clauses of the Colorado and the United States Constitutions.
NOTE: On October 17, 1980, the Special Master ruled that,
because these issues had previously been considered by the
Supreme Court, they would not be re-litigated in these
proceedings.
Paragraph 4 sets forth the damage suffered by applicant as a
result of the denial of his admission to the Colrado bar.
Paragraphs 5-8 set forth the issues to be determined in these
proceedings, namely: 1) Are the conclusions of the Report of
the Bar Committee still valiu, and 2) Has applicant carried past
misconduct into his law practice?
Paragraphs 5 and 6 set forth the reasons why the above two
issues should be resolved in applicant’s favor.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 allege that applicant understands the im-
propriety of his actions on which the Report of the Bar Com-
mittee was based; that applicant has not indulged in any
misconduct in his practice of law in the states where he has
been admitted to practice law, namely, California,
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, and that he now possesses the
moral and ethical qualifications necessary for admission to the
practice of law.
THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Paragraph | sets forth the history of this action.
42 oe
Paragraphs 2-7 allege various acts which were asserted to
warrant denial of applicant’s petition. All of these paragraphs
were dismissed as follows:
Paragraph 2, dismissed October 17, 1980, on applicant’s mo-
tion, because previously considered and ruled on by the Bar
Committee in its report.
Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, dismissed February 9, 1981, on mo-
tion of Special Counsel on ground that information developed
in depositions and other investigation by Special Counsel
disclosed that said acts did not indicate that applicant should
not be admitted, or were acts taken in good faith and should
not be pursued.
Paragraphs 6 and 7, dismissed on December 19, 1980, on
motion of Special Counsel on ground that after thorough in-
vestigation the allegations could not be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Paragraph 8 alleges that applicant testified falsely in a hear-
ing before a referee involving an unemployment compensation
claim filed by applicant following his discharge from employ-
ment by the law firm of Saunders, Snyder, Ross and Dickson.
AMMENDED REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
On December 19, 1980, Special Counsel filed a motion to
amend the Report of Special Counsel, parts of which were
Stricken by agreement of counsel. On January 13, 1981, over
objection of the applicant, the Special Master granted the mo-
tion in part. The allegations remaining in the Amended Report
are contained in paragraphs 1,2(c), 3, 4(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f).
They allege that applicant has an extremely vindictive character
and lack of self control which indicate mental or emotional in-
stability, as evidenced by his litigation against Dr. Jules Silver,
and his bringing of actions for attorney fees against West Point
cadets and other unidentified clients.
17a
The Report of Special Counsel also asserted that the conclu-
sions of the Bar Committee are still valid and denied the allega-
tions of the applicant’s petition.
COLLATERAL MATTERS
Several preliminary hearings were held at which rulings were
made as follows:
Special Master James Bunch held hearings on January i1,
1980 and January 21, 1980, following which Orders 1-4,
relative to the taking of depositions, were entered. In Order
No. 5, James Bunch recused himself.
Special Master Silverstein held hearings on May 20, 1980,
October 17, 1980, and December 19, 1980, from which the
following orders were issued: Order No. 6 denied Special
Counsel’s motion for medical examination of applicant; and
granted in part Special Counsel’s motion for release of infor-
mation.
Order No. 7 limited issues at October 17 hearing. At that
hearing, inter alia, applicant’s motion to dismiss paragraph 2
of Report of Special Counsel was granted, the burden of proof
at trial (hereinafter set forth) was established, and the issues
were limited.
At the December 19 hearing, Special Counsel’s motion to
dismiss paragraphs 6 and 7 of Special Counsel’s Report was
granted. On January 14, 1981, by Order No. 8, rulings were
made on Special Counsel’s motion for production of
documents and things, and on the motion to amend the Special
Report, as above set forth.
On January 22, 1981, a pre-trial order was issued. It was
amended on February 9, 1981, by stipulation of the parties.
Trial was held on February 16, 17 and 18, 1981.
18a
THE TRIAL
Pursuant to a previous order the applicant had the burden of
proof as to the allegations of his petition and Special Counsel
had the burden as to the allegations in the Special Counsel’s
Report, as amended, with both parties having a right of
rebuttal.
(Note: The pre-trial order issued January 22, 1981, contains
references to certain issues of law, and proposed stipulations of
fact as set forth in applicant’s original and amended pre-trial
statements. Due to the stipulation of the parties striking
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Special Counsel's Report, and the
amendment to the pre-trial order on February 9, 1981, all of
the issues of law except 12, 20 and 21, and all of the issues of
fact except 94, 95, 96, 99 and 100 are no longer relevant issues.
The issues remaining will be treated in the following Findings
of Fact and Conclusions.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Special Master, having reviewed the testimony at the
trial, the exhibits admitted, and the depositions submitted
without objection, finds:
The following facts are undisputed:
A. Applicant is admitted to practice law in California, Penn-
sylvania and Minnesota. He was admitted in California prior
to 1976.
B. He was also admitted in Pennsylvania prior to 1976.
However, at the time of his first applciation to be admitted in
Colorado, he had been suspended because of his failure to
register. Upon learning of this suspension he complied with the
registration requirements, and is now in good standing in
Pennsylvania, in inactive status.
19a
°
‘
; ; ~
os
-
1!
; os
o
. -
a's 4
! a ne)
an)
,
€ - -~ a
.
; ;
'
4s
Peis —— we
C. He was admitted to practice in Minnesota in 1978. In his
application for admission he disclosed the fact that he had been
denied admission in Colorado, and set forth the details of the
grounds relied on for his non-admittance.
D. While working for a law firm in Minnesota prior to his
admittance to practice, his business cards and letters disclosed
that he was admitted to practice only in California and
Pennsylvania.
E. The record reflects the following evidence relative to ap-
plicant’s residence:
Applicant is presently a student at Harvard Business School,
Boston, Massachusetts. At the time he took the Colorado Bar
Examination he was a resident of Colorado, living at 953
Filmore Street in Denver, in a house which he owned, and
which he still owns.
He still considers himself to be a resident of Colorado, pays
property taxes and income taxes in Colorado, and possesses a
Colorado drivers license. If admitted to practice, he intends to
commence the practice of law in Colorado within one year of
being notified of his admission. (Transcript pp. 26-19)
On his applicaiton for permission to take the Minnesota Bar
Examination (Exh. 16) he claimed legal residence in both Min-
nesota and Colorado.
PARAGRAPHS 5-8 APPLICANT'S PETITION
In the Report of the Bar Committee to the Supreme Court,
dated December 27, 1976 (Exh. 4), the Committee concluded
that applicant had evidenced irresponsibility in professional
matters, and lack of candor, and that such inclinations were
likely to be carried over by the applicant in the practice of law.
Applicant has alleged that, although valid at that time, the
conclusions of the Committee are no longer valid, that the im-
proper conduct has not been carried over to his practice, and
that he now has the moral and ethical qualifications necessary
for admission to practice law. As pertinent to these issues the
record shows the following facts.
Subsequent to his denial of admission to the Colorado Bar
applicant complied with the Pennsylvania registration re-
quirements and is now in good standing in the bar of that state,
on inactive status. In 1977 he was admitted to practice law in
Minnesota, and practiced there until August 1979 with the law
firm of Robins, Davis & Lyons, of St. Paul. Five of the part-
ners of that firm, by affidavit, assert that they believe that ap-
plicant ‘is of high moral character and is in all other ways
qualified to be a practicing attorney"’ in Colorado.
From September 1979, to the present, applicant has been a
student at Harvard Business School, where he is scheduled to
get his degree in June 1981. He is chairman of the Student
Clubs Committee. The committee is composed of the
presidents of the various clubs in the Business School, and
oversees the handling of club finances and elections. The chair-
manship of the committee is an elected office. His fellow
students appear to hold applicant in high regard, both for his
capabilities and his moral integrity.
Since November 1979, applicant has done part-time work as
a consultant for a Boston lawyer, Mr. Michael J. Flynn, who
has great esteem for applicant and states he is ‘‘more highly
ethical’’ than other attorneys with whom Flynn has had ex-
perience. (Flynn desposition).
Applicant has applied for admission to the United States
Supreme Court, which was apprised of applicant's status in
Colorado. That application is being held in abeyance pending
determination of the present proceedings. (Exh. 13).
In seeking employment applicant advised prospective
employers of his being denied admission in Colorado.
However, this disclosure was not made until after he was of-
fered a job, and upon his making this disclosure each of the job
offers was withdrawn.
Applicant also disclosed the fact that he had been denied ad-
mission in Colorado to business associates and some of the
students at Harvard. Those who so testified, by deposition,
evidenced by their testimony a vague and limited understan-
ding of the reasons why applicant was denied admission.
PARAGRAPH 8 SPECIAL COUNSEL’S R” PORT
Paragraph 8 of the Special Counsel’s Repori 4,leges that appli-
cant testified falsely in a hearing before a referee in an
unemployment compensation action, following applicant’s ter-
mination of employment by the firm of Saunders, Snyder,
Ross and Dickson. It is alleged that applicant testified falsely in
that he denied he was warned about his improper use of facts;
denied he was warned not to approach problems vindictively,
and asserted the reason he was fired was because he was called
before the ‘‘ethics committee.’’
The transcript of the testimony at the hearing before the
referee (Exh. Z) discloses that Mr. Snyder testified for the
employer as follows: Applicant was hired as a law clerk prior to
his taking the Colorado bar examination; that, at a conference
in mid-March, applicant was advised that the firm was
dissatisfied with his work in that he was spending too much
time on his personal affairs, his approach to problems was too
vindictive, and he misused facts.
He further testified that applicant did not change his ways.
His discharge resulted from that failure to heed the warning
and a letter which applicant wrote to Colonel Alan L. Zbar in
which he stated, ‘‘I am a civilian attorney practicing law in
Denver ...’’
22a
be
(Note: This letter was reported to, and considered by the Bar
Committee in its report to the Supreme Court).
The applicant testified that he was warned about spending
too much time on his own work, and that he remedied this pro-
blem; that he had not been told he was vindictive, and that he
believed his firing was due to his being called before the ‘‘ethics
committee.’’ (Note: He was referring to his hearing before the
Bar Committee of the Board of Law Examiners).
The employer, in response to the claim for unemployment
compensation, filed with the Department of Labor a Statement
of Facts (Exh. X) in which one of the Reasons for Termination
stated, ‘‘We also learned that (applicant) wes to appear before
an ethical committee the afternoon of Apri! 30.’’
At the hearing before the Special Master several members of
the employer’s firm testified (transcript pp. 158-255) reaffirm-
ing the employer’s grounds for applicant’s discharge from
employment.
The referee found that applicant was discharged because of
the letter to Colonel Zbar and ‘‘the differences of opinion in
the firm between the ciaimant and the employer...’’ He
determined that appellant was basically responsible for the
separation (Exh. AA). The Industrial Commission affired the
referee’s order (Exh. DD).
FINDING: In considering all of the testimony and exhibits
pertinet to this issue, the Special Master finds that the
testimony of the applicant before the referee represents the
customary difference of perspective between an employer and a
discharged employee usually reflected in unemployment com-
pensation actions.
PARAGRAPHS 2(c), 3, 4(a), (b), (c) SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
AMENDED REPORT
In September 1974, applicant was hired by Dr. Jules Silver to
represent him and his company, Masti-Kure Products Com-
23a
pany, Inc. in a dispute with the Federal Food and Drug Ad-
ministration. The hiring was evidenced by a written contract
which set forth a detailed fee agreement. Although there was a
successful conclusion to the action brought in his client’s
behalf, Dr. Silver refused to pay the entire fee vlaimed by appli-
cant, asserting that applicant had been replaced by other
counsel midway through the proceedings, because of
applicant’s lack of ability to handle the matter properly.
In January 1975, in order to settle the dispute, Dr. Silver
paid applicant $7,000, in exchange for which applicant ex-
ecuted a full release, releasing Dr. Silver and his company from
all claims which applicant had, or might have, against them.
However, in May 1975, applicant wrote a lengthy letter to Dr.
Silver, asserting that the release was invalid because of lack of
consideration and duress, and threatened to sue Dr. Silver if a
claimed balance due was not promptly paid.
Nothing was paid, and in November 1976, appliant filed an
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, appearing pro se. The complaint alleged breach of
contract, quantum meruit, negligence, misrepresentations,
abuse of process, outrageous conduct, and infliction of emo-
tional distress, and asked for declaratory judgment and
damages. At the trial court’s suggestion an amended com-
plaint, drafted by an attorney employed by applicant, was fil-
ed. This suit was dismissed on March 24, 1977, by the court on
the ground that it appeared ‘‘beyond a legal certainty that the
only amounts validly in issue’’ totalled only $4,253.62
On April 11, 1977, applicant, through his attorney, filed suit
in the Superior Court of the District of Colymbia, alleging
claims in breach of contract, quantum meruit, and
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Jurisdiction was
asserted under the District’s long arm statute. The trial court
dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. Applicant appealed and, on October 30, 1978, the
24a
District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court
and ordered the complaint reinstated.
In July 1978, while the above appeal was pending, a similar
action was filed in Common Pleas Court in Connecticut by ap-
pellant, appearing pro se. There is no evidence in the record
relative to the current status of thse actions.
The action was filed in Connecticut ‘‘in order to avoid the
running of the statute of limitations.’’ (Exh. 12).
Between July and September 1976, applicant was hired by
more than 100 cadets of the United States Military Academy at
West Point, New York, to provide legal assistance with respect
to charges that the cadets had violated the Cadet Honor Code.
Each cadet signed a retainer contract which set forth specific
fee provisions.
PARAGRAPH 4e) SPECIAL COUNSEL’S AMENDED REPORT
After the work was successfully completed applicant sent
bills to each of the cadets, most of whom paid their share of the
fee. However, about one-fourth failed to pay, and, in June
1978, just before the cadets would graduate, applicant,
through an attorney, filed two suits to collect the fees asserted
to be still unpaid. The actions were brought in the Supreme
Court: State of New York, Orange County, and in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In the U.S. District Court case default judgement against all
defendants was cbtained, and later set aside on defendants’
motion, and defendants filed an answer. On February 7, 1979,
the court ordered the case to be placed on the suspense calen-
dar, pursuant to the Federal Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act of
1940, with the provison that the case could be removed from
that calendar as to each cadet upon a proper showing of his
release from military service. The record here reveals no such
releases.
25a
In the Supreme Court case an ex parte writ of attachment
was issued and executed on the bank accounts of the defen-
dants. Defendants’ motion to abate the action under the New
York Soldiers’ and Sailors Relief Act was denied. Motions by
both sides to take depositions of opposing parties have been fil-
ed, but none have been taken, due on the one hand to defen-
dants’ unavailability because of their military service, and on
the other hand due to applicant’s asserted inability to go to
New York.
On November 21, 1978, an order was entered requiring ap-
plicant to appear ‘‘for an examination before trail within 20
days after the case first appears on the ready day trial calen-
dar ...In the event plaintiff comes in to the state sooner,
plaintiff’s counsel shall notify attorney for the defendants and
plaintiff shall make himself available for examination as
aforestated ...’’ Applicant testified that he was not aware
that his order had been entered, and that he had been in New
York two or three times since the order was entered.
No action was taken in the suit from the date of the order un-
til December 1980, when applicant filed responses to written in-
terrogatories which had been propounded some two years
earlier. The responses were filed after defendants had filed a
motion to preclude applicant from offering any evidence, due
to his failure to so respond. Nothing further has transpired in
the action since December 1980.
Mr. Frank Plaut, lawyer and former member of the
Grievance Committee gave his opinion that the bringing of
these actions, the timing thereof, and the actions taken therein
did not constitute unethical conduct, did not evidence irrespon-
sibility, immoral conduct, or vindictiveness. (Transcript pp.
280-287).
26a
CONCLUSIONS
1. GENERAL CONDUCT. During his practice in Minnesota,
applicant’s employers were very satisfied with his work and
found him ethical and reliable in all respects. At Harvard
Business School his fellow students were impressed by his
awareness of moral and ethical considerations in the various
business problems they were assigned to solve. He acquired a
position of leadership among his classmates.
Lawyers with whom he worked in Boston and in the handl-
ing of the West Point cadet cases were favorably impressed
with his handling of the various matters both from a legal and
an ethical standpoint.
From all! of the evidence it is concluded that applicant has
not carried past misconduct into his law practice.
It is further concluded that in the years since his denial of ad-
mission -- and possibly because of it -- applicant has matured
and achieved a somewhat more reasoned outlook on life than
he had in 1976.
2. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE REFEREE. Although there
is a conflict in the testimony before the referee relative to the
subjects discussed at the March meeting between the employer
and the applicant, it appears from the entire record of the In-
dustrial Commission that the ultimate reason for applicant's
discharge was the letter to Colonel Zbar, and applicant’s being
called to appear before the Bar Committee, as testified by
applicant.
3. THE SUITS AGAINST DR. SILVER. These suits were
begun in 1976, and at least the action in the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia is still pending. While attending
business school applicant has done nothing to press advance-
ment of the action, and, apparently, neither have the defen-
dants. While the bringing of these actions indicates an element
of vindictiveness, and although I disapprove of the dilatory
lack of action, I conclude that the bringing and pursuit of this
action do not warrant denial of admission to practice law.
4. THE SUIT AGAINST THE WEST POINT CADETS.
These suits to recover fees do not evidence vindictiveness. The
timing was necessitated by the fact that, following graduation,
the cadets would be assigned to posts around the United States
and in foreign countries. The failure to attempt to collect the
pro-rata share from the non-paying cadets could, if applicant
so elected, place an unfair burden on those who had paid to
pay the delinquent cadets’ shares. Here the delay in prosecuting
the action is due, not only to applicant's failure to submit to
the taking of a deposition, but also to the unavailability of the
cadets for the taking of their depositions. The fact that appli-
cant was unaware of the order to appear to be deposed when he
came to New York appears to be a delinquency on the part of
his attorney.
5. ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. Therefore it is the conclu-
sion of the Special Master that applicant is moraly and ethically
qualified to practice law, and that his prior misconduct has not
been carried over into his practice of law.
It is further concluded that, even if the issues of vindictive
character and lack of self control are properly before the court
and are proper criteria for determining applicant's qualifica-
tion for admission, the evidence presented does not establish
these propensities as being present in applicant at this time.
28a
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Special Master that, upon
his establishing actual residence in the State of Colorado, ap-
plicant be admitted to the practice of law in this state.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry Silverstein, Jr.
Special Master
Dated: May 8, 1981
29a
APPENDIX F
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
IN RE: )
) ORDER NO. 2
Application of: )
) OF SPECIAL MASTER
MICHAEL T. ROSE )
At a scheduled hearing in this mat-
ter, the parties raised the application of
Rule 216, C.R.C.P., concerning confidenti-
ality of these proceedings. After hearing
the discussions and arguments of the par-
ties and upon consideration, I find and
order that:
a. Rule 216, C.R.C.P., is appli-
cable to these proceedings, except that
such disclosures as may be reasonably
30a
necessary in order to prepare for hearing,
are allowed.
b. The witnesses who may present
evidence herein will be afforded the def-
erence and protections usually allowed to
witnesses in judicial proceedings in Colo-
rado.
<. Parties and counsel will conduct
themselves accordingly.
ORDERED as of the 21st day of Janu-
ary, 1980.
{s/f James T. Bunch
Special Master
3la
APPENDIX G
Law Offices
HOUTCHENS, HOUTCHENS AND DANIEL
1007 Ninth Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
December 6, 1976
Honorable Supreme Court
State of Colroado
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 80202
RE: Michael T. Rose
Gentlemen:
At a regular meeting of the Bar Committee of the Board of
Law Examiners held on Friday, December 3, 1976, with all
members of the Committee present except Russell P. Kramer,
and with Mr. Richard T. Hennesey, counsel of the Grievance
Coinmittee also present at our request, the Committee again
32a
r.-;
/ —
ies rd a"?
" A
y
ape 7
Oo
i
7 iv :
- i =
7 .
' 7 —_=
- - 7 a “ = Ss =
: - :
— = : 7
:
aC a 7 " = - Ci +
é ¢ a = Tn
:
> ice : a
_ - =
o 7 : = |
— =
. i
f ri -
a 7 ~4 4 -
: : : — a > 7 a
Y le
ey ; 7
ie: ;
f
: , wi
7: 7 P *
a
it)
ie = :
,&
' li
J — ‘
-
| . f
r 5 - y
i ie - . ’
: ie ey e
iat 7
p _ , A —_ > :
7 : : : any 7
eh n
j - ’ ¥ = T: - i
- a ' : =) )
e a ci a = oo “
7 7 P -
a » \ _ :
_ + = = —
p J - . a
oo : pad
reviewed the ‘‘complaints’’ made against Mr. Michael T. Rose
and the many letters submitted in support of his application for
admission. For the second time we discussed at length with Mr.
Hennessey his investigation in to the matters raised by the
‘‘complaints’’.
Friday’s meeting was the third meeting of the Commitiee at
which the subject of the moral and ethical qualifications of Mr.
Rose was considered. At the two previous meetings held on
April 30, 1976 and June 4, 1976 Mr. Rose was present and
represented by counsel and the questions by members of the
Committee and the responses thereto made under oath were
recorded at the Arpil 30, 1976 meeting by Darlene Pfaff, a cer-
tified shorthand reported and at the June 4, 1976 meeting by
John D. Boverie, a certified shorthand reporter. The Commit-
tee decided against ordering transcripts of these proceedings
but told the reporters to preserve their notes in case trarscripts
became necessary.
At the conclusion of the meeting on December 3, 1976 the
members of the Committee present, on motion to recommend
the admission of Mr. Rose to the Court made by Senator
Cisneros, and duly seconded, voted as follows:
In favor of the motion: Senator Roger
Cisneros
Against the motion:
Donald S. Stubbs
Warren L. Turner
Cover Mendenall
Bernard Houtchens
33a
* i Ser. ial
——s
-
a 2
ans
ew ©
Ps >
gt Dw
We will submit the Bar Committee Certificate in customary
form as soon as it can be circulated among and signed by the
members present and voting at the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Chairman
Bar Committee
BH/w
APPENDIX H
Colorado State Board
of Law Examiners
Re: Michael Rose
April 30, 1976
606 State Social Services Bldg.
1575 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
State Board:
Barnard Houtchens, Chairman
Don Stubbs
Warren Turner
Jacob Sherman
Roger Cisneros
Alden Hill
34a
Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson
By: Willard Snyder and Andrew Blair
225 East 16th Avenue, #802
Denver, Colorado 80203
Appearing in behalf of Mr. Rose.
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Mr. Rose, Senator Cisneros
has been laboring in this matter before the Committee with
respect to your application and maybe has some questions. I
would first state that we are on the record.
MR. CISNEROS: Mr Rose --
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Just one minute. Is it your
understanding that Mr. Rose was to be sworn?
CATHRYN ABLES: Yes.
MICHAEL ROSE, being first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: We didn’t ask counsel if this
was all right with him.
MR. SNYDER: Fine.
EXAMINATION
By Mr. Cisneros:
Q_ Before we start, Mr. Rose, we did receive a letter from
Mr. Moye. I don’t think you have a copy of that.
A Yes, sir. He sent me one.
Q. Allright. Thank you. And I imagine you have copies of
the rest of the letters that have been submitted to us. There’s
one from Mr. Olson.
A Yes, sir.
Q. And one from Mr. Blair.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, as you know, Mr. Rose, the reason that we asked
you to meet with us is that there’s been some allegations that
you’ve been passing yourself out as an attorney here in
Colorado without being admitted to practice.
A Yes, sir.
Q_ I think one of the main reasons is a letter that you wrote
to a Colonel Sabar.
A Yes, sir.
Q_ I think the letter is dated April 9, 1976 and on the second
paragraph you indicate, ‘‘Now I am a civilian attorney practic-
ing law in Denver after having served some time in active
duty.’’
A Yes, sir.
Q. And there is an affidavit from a Michael Watts, Captain
Watts, which indicates that on 31 May, 1975 you called him
Stating that you were Mr. Rose, an attorney in Denver,
Colorado who was representing a client who was a member of
the United States Air Force.
So I think essentially those are the two instances we have
where there has been some indication, although there are some
36a
4,
]
f
iT
Oy
f
i
——
letters also from 2 Mr. Arnison, which indicated that -- this let-
ter is dated April 28, 1976 which also indicates that you
apeared at his home and indicated -- led him to believe that you
were an attorney.
A Yes, sir.
Q_ So first of all, I’d like to ask you, do you have any
answers to these specific letters that have made those allega-
tions?
A Let me begin by saying, gentlemen, that these charges in
my mind are very serious and that since being notified of the
charges, I have done everything I can to prepare a presentation
which I now wish to give to show that what it all comes down
to, these charges are just incorrect and if I may, what I'd like to
do is -- unfortunately the circumstances, the aggregate of the
circumstances are also somewhat complicated, but [’ll try now
to go through them. First of all --
Q Let me ask you this: Are you admitted to practice any
place at this time?
A I’m a member of the California Bar and the Penn-
sylvania Bar. I am not admitted in Colorado.
Q Now, you were working with the firm of Mr. Snyder at
the time?
A That’s correct.
Q_ Because most of the letters have had the --
A That’s correct.
Q_ In what capacity have you been working there?
A Well, I’m an employee of the firm, much as any
associate who has come from out of state to join a law firm,
but they’re not yet admitted to practice. Now, I came to
Colorado in March or April of 1975 of last year from Califor-
37a
nia. Soon after having gotten out of the U.S. Air Force, Ecame
here to assume the presidency of a company and through
December, 1975, have done nothing in Colorado whatsoever in
any employment capacity except be president of this particular
company. In fact, Mr. Blair here, of Dawson, Nagel, Sherman
and Howard happened to be the attorney for my company so
what | have obtained here, gentlemen, are affidavits and
statements from several people, | have at least 30 statements
here, from people ikke our consultants, people we have done
business with, my secretary, and so on, saying not only have
they not ever seen me represent that I’m a Colorado licensed at-
torney, and not only have | not practiced law in general at all
during that time, but also in these specific instances alleged,
but also they have seen me go out of my way in order to avoid
anyone thinking that |! was a Colorado licensed attorney.
Now one reason tor this is the particular company that I’ve
been president of ts a group Legal Service Plan Company. The
company was incorporated in July of '75 and the majority of
my time was in fact spent outside of Colroado promoting this
Legal Service Plan Company in some 15 states. In tact, in the
six-month period of time in 1975, [ personally met with the
chairman of the. Ethics Committee, including Charles
bredrickson, then chairman of the Ethics Committee here in
Colorado, Bar, in 1S states in order to discuss and obtain
clearance for our legal service plan. In tact, | had gotten to
the point where in October 1975, by invitation | spoke before the
American Bar Association’s Committee on the Code of Profes-
sional Responsibility in Washington by invitation because of my
acknowledged expertise or knowledge | would suppose about
ethical matters concerning the Bar.
Now, at any rate, turning to the specific allegations made
here, | arrived in Colorado at the invitation of a gentleman
named Ronald Gallahan, who was financing a company who
invited me to become its president and I arrived here in March
for the first time just to in effect be interviewed.
i 38a
5 Al
Then I moved out here in April and stayed with him, in other
words, during May, June, and July, I was not paying rent
anywhere, I was just staying with him part-time. In fact, most
of my time was spent in these other states.
Now, in May of 1975 a person named Don Peppers, who I've
had a personal relationship and an attorney-client relationship
for at least two vears starting when he was a graduate student
at Princeton and I was a legal! officer in McFair Air Force Base
in New Jersey, came to Colorado. Mr. Peppers was number
one in his class in the Air Force Academy and was having conti-
nuing problems in the military of one sort or another. Mr. Pep-
pers came to Denver, sought me out and asked my advice on
whether or not I thought he was out of the Air Force because of
the particular construction of the Federal statute. I then gave
him my opinion and contemporaneous with that statement,
called Mr. David Wagner and there’s an affidavit from Mr.
Wagner attesting to that, who is a Colorado licensed attorney
and also a personal friend who went with me to the Air Force
Academy. He was in Washington D.C. and Mr. Wagner and I
discussed the matter and Mr. Peppers -- we agreed that since
Mr. Wagner was in Washington D.C., he would go see the
Judge Advocate General of the Air Force to ask whether Pep-
pers had to return to his base in Ohio or whether they agreed he
was Out of the Air Force.
It was agreed since | was in Denver, Colorado and it was a
local call, | would call out to Lowry Air Force Base and ask the
legal officer there if Mr. Peppers was out of the Air Force and
specifically whether he had to return to Ohio. I never, during
the entire two years, ever asked for or received any compensa-
tion from Mr. Peppers. In fact, he sought me out and, for ex-
ample, one of the affidavits in there shows because it just so
happens that I’m acknowledged as having some particular ex-
pertise in this field. In fact, ten days ago I was called by the
staff attorney for the American Bar Association’s Military Law
39a
Committee to be informed that they want to put me on their
committee, so what it comes down to is, I was in a transient
status. The last two years I’ve moved from New Jersey to D.C., to
take a legal job there for two months where I was representing a
drug company and once that case was over, | moved to California,
became a member of the California Bar and moved here.
Peppers during that same period of time was transferred
from New Jersey to Denver to Pennsylvania and now he’s in
Ohio. He arrives in town, asks for my help on something, I call
a Colorado licensed attorney, he assumes responsibility for it
and his affidavit so states and we agree that in effect under his
supervision, but because of my knowledge in this, I have a lot
to contribute to this matter too, he would go see the Judge Ad-
vocate attorney and I would call Lowry Air Force Base.
Gentlemen, I honestly don’t recall the phraseology that I us-
ed in that telephone conversation. I’m certain, however, that I
did not tell Captain Watts that I’m a Colorado licensed at-
torney or I’m an attorney practicing in Denver. In fact, his af-
fidavit doesn’t say that. What it does is say that he being given
the impression that I was a Colorado attorney. Now, there is
not motive for me to do that. In fact, Mr. John Moye, who
wrote one of those recommendations for me, was legal orficer
at Lowry himself, and he says he received inquires all the time
from people who weren’t attorneys at all on behalf of other
people where they have to go -- where their son is AWOL and
that sort of thing.
I did tell Mr. Watts, | don’t recall his name, that I was an at-
torney and that I was licensed in two states, but I did not tell
him, I’m sure that I did not tell him I was a Colorado licensed
attorney, but merely I told him that I was calling from Denver.
There is another complaint that I’m sure part of this, which I
do not think certainly you referred to and that is it’s really con-
40a
eee
4
en al
: Tr
a an az
7 oe a a
; j
- ye
Oe oe : a
= > y te a 7
: ae a - re ;
a Se ee a rey perry ieee
mv . Fh Tie) ee
temporaneous with this. After I called out at Lowry Air Force
Base, I called the Controller General's Office in Washington, |
had told Don Peppers and David Wagner told Don Peppers
that both of our independent sources, his in Washington and
mine at Lowry Air Force Base, concluded Peppers had to go
back to Ohio. I told Peppers he had to get local counsel in
Dayton, Ohio. In fact, not only did he get local counsel at my
suggestion, but in my many trips in these 15 states in which we
were promoting my particular company, one of the states was
Ohio, and I stopped in Dayton, Ohio to meet with Mr. Muirs,
who is the local Ohio licensed attorney that was helping Mr.
Peppers.
So what I’m saying is that everything I did for Mr. Peppers
was under the supervision of a Colorado licensed attorney or
an Ohio licensed attorney.
I was really -- it’s questionable whether I was even living here
because my belongings weren’t here yet, | wasn’t paying rent
here yet, I was just living with someone and the majority of my
time I was spending one day in Florida, one day in Rhode
Island, one day in New Jersey, and so on and finally I have
never asked any compensation from this gentleman. He sought
me out and we had a personal relationship, as his affidavit
shows, standard for over two years and he sought me out
because he wanted my help.
Now, I did also call Washington at Mr. Peppers’ request,
coordinated that. I discussed it with his attorney when he got
his Ohio attorney soon thereafter, and in at least two of my
mini-trips through Washington D.C., I went by the Controller
General’s Office and talked with the people there.
Now, I understand that a Colonel Olson from the Air Ac-
counting Finance Center has sent in a complaint in which he at-
taches to the first page of the Controller General’s decision
dated October 17, 1975 in which it says on the first page that
this decision is rendered as a result of a requst from -- a letter
4la
— pba a oe re tem i all bie —
Bt) ee ————— 7
f _ coe : ates _ _ ’
ca - fs i ie | AS 5
a eo eee
yee en ae a=
= m4 od = us. ey > 8 ~. -#©& > ori fi
— | en eS _ a _ 7 _ = i
7 he i 2 oe = 7 4
wi Fl isto Ve Se eee, feet f
(‘a . a Mere By it
pe
dated June Sth, i975, Michael Rose, Esquire, Denver,
Colorado. | have a mailgram statement that I received from
Mr. Monzma who was in the Attorney General Office and
whom I met with when I went to Washington and whom | talk-
ed with on the phone, attesting that at no time did I represent
that | was a Colorado licensed attorney nor did he understand
that. The only reason, as his statement in there says, that the
Controller General’s opinion says Michael T. Rose, Esquire,
Denver, Colorado, as a matter of identification, its a routine
format, it’s routine on all their Controller General's decisions
that they identify who made the request and it says | was doing
this in behalf of Peppers.
I sent along an authorization from Peppers for me to make
this request when I wrote the June Sth letter. The June Sth let-
ter was not on any law firm stationery. It was just on a regular
letter that I personally typed. The reason he put Denver,
Colorado is, I put 953 Fillmore Street, Denver, Colorado as the
return address. This is an address in which I was staying with
someone rent free because of my new arrival and transient
status here and I had to have some place to pick up my mail.
So, in other words, he put on the first page of the Controller
General's decision, Denver, Colorado, for the sole reason that
on my return address | had Michael T. Rose, 953 Fillmore
Street, Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Monzma, who is the attorney with whom I interacted,
further states that the authorization I sent to him with that let-
ter from Peppers stated that I was given authority to represent
him as an attorney-in-fact, and at "hat time he did not -- drew
his distinction between attorney-in-fact and attorney-at-law, so
he knew I happened to be an attorney and he knew I was licens-
ed somewhere. In fact, | don’t really recall where he said -- he
knew I was an attorney, but he says in there that to represent
one before the Controller General's Office, oné need not be an
attorney at all. They can have anvbody as long as they've got
authorization to do so.
42a
alain
7
So what I’m saying here, gentlemen, is that what all this
comes down to is that we have a matter involving Federal
military law in which I have acquired a knowledge, expertise,
and which I was sought out by a gentleman from whom I
received no compensation and which I have gone out of my
way as the affidavit shows to insure that he was -- the respon-
sibility for this matter was by an Ohio licensed attorney with
whom I met at Peppers’ request in Dayton, Ohio and also a
Colorado licensed attorney.
All the relevant papers here say that at no time did they
understand I was a Colorado licensed attorney. There was no
need for me to represent that and I honestly thought at the time
that, you know, it just never occurred to me that there was go-
ing to be a problem here. There occurred to me there could bea
problem. That’s why I went out of my way. I tried to go out of
my way to avoid a problem by making sure that Peppers got a
local Colorado attorney and a local Ohio attorney to assume
responsibility.
Now, there’s really two categories of complaint, gentlemen.
| have just described one, and that has to do with military. The
second has to do with partnership called Gulf Coast Properties
Group. Now, as the affidavits in here will show, in the -- by the
fall of 1975, my Legal Service Plan company, of which I was
president and part owner, was making phenomenal progress.
In fact, we had a contract, for example, with the Coors
Breweries Workers Union out here which received some
publicity in November of ’75. The person who is solely respon-
sible for financing the company, through my great embarrass-
ment and humiliation, unexpectedly withdrew his financing
for the company, and a breach of his agreement. You have in
there a statement from the business manager of the Coors
Brewery workers Union saying that with as much grace and
straighforwardness and honesty as one could under the cir-
cumstances muster. | quickly went out to the Brewery Workers
Union, explained to them that we lost our funding, we may not
eres
-
Lo = vy
. “
ee ee ee or
»
= a“ an ) _
hes [ a m gy
ee eh
i
4
be able to honor our contract beginning with January Ist, ’76,
and that I would try during November -- December to obtain
funding to continue the company.
Now, I’m sure the relevance of this is not apparent at he mo-
ment, but it soon hopefully will be.
So during November and December, and a time which I had
no income, I began trying to find investors in my company in
order to salvage it and in the process of doing so, I met the --the
first person I met with was a multimillionaire in Lakewood
called Vince Dominico. With him as a CPA, John Amato, one
Arnison, who is the author of one of these complaints, and also
Gene Schroeder, and through may company, Barbara Ellis and
Paul Roach.
Now I met with Mr. Dominico three or four times and as the
affidavit states, contrary to what John Arnison alleges, at all
times we discussed solely whether or not this multimillionaire
was interested in investing in my company. At no time did we
ever dicuss whether or not anyone would represent anybody on
any legal matter. In fact, Mr. John Amato, the CPA-lawyer,
states in there that he recalls that I went out of my way to state
the first time that I was not a Colorado licensed attorney. In
fact, gentlemen, it just now occurs to me that yesterday Judge
Howard Kirshbaum reminded me on the phone that when I ap-
peared before the Colorado Supreme Court in May of 1975 ata
public hearing to discuss Legal Service Plan, he recalls, he says,
or thinks he recalls, | even made the point then to the Court,
Supreme Court of Colorado, ‘‘I’m not a Colorado licensed at-
torney’’ trying to make sure that -- (o avoid any inference that I
was.
So I now have a statement from the CPA-lawyer, an af-
fidavit, John Amato, from Paul Roach and from Barbara
Ellis, all who were in attendance at that meeting saying that
contrary to what Mr. John Arnisonclaims, I have never, in any
44a
ahd teat
ani ee a
Boas)
of those meetings, said anything of the things that he claims.
Now, why would Mr. Arnison be saying these things? Well,
for one thing, my company now has a lawsuit pending against
Mr. Arnison and the financer who withdrew his funds, Mr.
Ron Gallahan, who withdrew his funds from Group Legal Ser-
vices of America. So in other words, what happened is, and I
have a letter here so stating, | gave a whole stack of investment
materials to Mr. Dominico, the multimillionaire who might in-
vest in my company, and then [| asked for them back and he
wrote me a letter and said, ‘‘I’m sorry to say this, but John
Arnison who attended the meeting took them’’ and apparently
he gave them to what turned out to be his friend, Ron
Gallahan. So Gallahan not only withdrew the money from our
company, but he was treasurer of the company and also retus-
ed to give us the records.
Now I’m at the juncture, now, gentlemen, I know this is very
complicated, but I assure you, and all these statements in here
and affidavits the court -- that this is all absolutely true, is that
now I’ve gone November and December without any income
and I"m running out of money and I bought a house and I’ve
got a car to support and so on, so I decided it’s time to take the
Colorado Bar.
Now, I called Mr. Charles Fredrickson, then chairman of the
Ethics Committee of the Colorado Bar, as he verifies in his
Statement, and asked him what I could do, what were the
parameters of what I could or could not do as an out-of-state
attorney not licensed to practice !aw in Colorado.
I also have called Mr. Ed Felter, who is the Assistant
Attornery General in Colorado who prosecutes unauthorized
practice of law to ask the same thing. Subsequently, I’ve also
checked with Mr. Rich Hennesee, and in substance what they
all told me was that under the supervision of another Colorado
licensed attorney, I could do anything short of going to court
45a
and signing pleadings. Specifically, I could interact with
clients, I could sign letterhead stationery of the firm as long as
it did not contain my name on the letterhead stationery imply-
ing that I was a member of the firm; as long as I was careful to
insure that everyone understood I was not a Colorado licensed
attorney, but I was working for someone else who was taking
responsibility for the case.
Now, I tell you this, gentlemen, to show that not only
because of my concern about the ethical rules of these af-
fidavits and statements show, pertaining to my legal service of
my company, but because of\miy-eoncern for insuring that there
was no misunderstandings and that I followed -- I learned what
the ethical rules were and I adhered to them. I went out of my
way to consult with the people who I thought would know, find
out what the ethical requirements in this state were.
Now, I decided since we -- Mr. Dominico decided not to in-
vest in the company and a couple other people did, so then it
was time for me to find some kind of employment, so I enroll-
ed in the Colorado Bar course and took the Colorado Bar. We
have an affidavit from Mr. Ed Bendelow saying that in
December and January, I worked as -- under his supervision in
his law offices for him and contemporaneous with that, but
going through January and February, I also worked for the law
firm of Carrigan and Bragg; Doug Bragg and Jim Carrigan.
There is an affidavit so stating in there, and after I sent my
resume to several firms, within about a three-week period, I
had four job offers and I decided to become an employee of
and associated with Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, and so
since January 14th, I believe that’s the date, of ’76, I have been
an employee of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson working
half time through the Colorado Bar exam and working full
time after.
Now, because Mr. Gallahan -- I was involved with Mr.
Gallahan, who was the financer of my Legal Service Com-
pany, who went to Los Angeles and persuaded me to move out
to Colorado in the first place. I was involved with him in
another deal, another venture called Gulf Coast Properties
Group. This Gulf Coast Properties Group as general partner-
ship in which Mr. Gallahan is the general manager and which
I’m general partner and basically Mr. Donald Peppers who in-
cidentally happens to be the same individual who sought me
out in may of 1975 and about which the military is making a
complaint because I assisted the same Mr. Donald Peppers,
before he was living here in Denver and I was in Washington
representing a Connecticut drug company for the Food and
Drug Administration, got in touch with me and persuaded me
to invest a couple thousand dollars, twenty-two fifty to be ex-
act, in Gulf Coast Properties Group. Because Mr. Gallahan
withdrew iis financial support of my company, because |
-- pursuant to contract, Mr. Gallahan was supposed to pay me
some money from Gulf Coast Properties Group and then
refused to do it, I began to suspect that there was some kind of
wrongdoing with Gulf Coast Properties.
In fact, in January of '76, I received complaints from three
different sources, two of which I never heard of, saying that
they were general partners in Gulf Coast Properties Group and
they had evidence of various kinds of wrongdoing.
Now, what it comes down to, gentlemen, is that all the
members, known members of Gulf Coast Properties Group,
and there are 18, they’re Air Force Academy graduates like me
and I’m the only one in Colorado other than Gallahan. Fur-
thermore, I’m the only attorney and one guy is in Arizona, and
they’re scattered in various places. So Donald Peppers, the of-
ficer in Ohio, sent a letter dated June 6 to all the known part-
ners of Gulf Coast Properties Group informing them of their
plans, that various people had about how this partnership was
managed.
Now, what it turns out, gentlemen, is, as you may or may
not know, last Sunday in the Rocky Mountain News there was
47a
a three-page, over three pages of a lengthy articie explaining
that what it all comes down io is this Mr. Gallahan has con-
verted one to three hundred thousand dollars of other people’s
money in four real estate partnerships including my general
partnership to his own uses. As of January I was receiving
complaints that said ‘‘for years past we have never received a
partnership agreement. We don’t know who our partners are.
Mr. Gallahan refuses to give an accounting of how he spent our
money’’ and futhermore, he had sent a letter to everyone in
November of ’75, including me, saying that he had taken the
liberty to sell the property owned by the partnership, which is
down in Mississippi, and on his own initiative, without con-
sulting with anyone in advance, take the monevs theretrom and
to purchase land, a condominium in Massachusetts and land in
Freeport, Colorado.
So, in other words, we had evidence that, coming to me,
gratuitously and stuff I’ve found out on my own that this guy
Gallahan converted our moneys to his own uses. It turns out
he’s being investigated and has been, that is to my instigation,
on my Own initiative, in January by the Securities and Ex-
change Commission and now by the District Attorney's Office,
and they now have voluminous evidence that Gulf Coast Pro-
perties Group doesn’t have any property in its name, but it’s in
the name of Gallahan and Gallahan’s father.
The relevance, gentlemen, of this is this: I have in here a
stack of letters that | have received as of February Ist, '76 from
my general partners to me or from people to other -- some
partners to other partners complaining about the way this part-
nership is being managed. We are not registered in the City and
County of Denver, which is a criminal misdemeanor by statute,
and so forth, and in one of the letters, Peppers’ proposals, and
you'll see in there that since I’m the only general partner in
Colorado and since I’m associated with a law tirm and he states
in there, however, I’m taking Colorado Bar, meaning that I’m
not yet amember of the Colorado Bar, proposes that everyone
48a
kta
hire my law firm with me to represent this group.
Now, the allegations here are, gentlemen, that our law firm
in fact has been retained by 12 or 13 members of this partner-
ship and in fact we've been representing for about two months
now this partnership, and the person against whom all these
complaints are, in other words, the person under investigation
by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by the District
Attorney's Office, his attorney has sent to you these documents
about Gulf Coast Properties Group, presumably complaining
that since | have signed documents in heré on letterhead sta-
tionery and whatever, that I’ve been engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law. So in other words, none of the
people that our firm represents are complaining. In tact, | have
lots of informal, and I've gor a couple in there, little letters
trom people saying things of a very personal nature.
So what it comes down to, gentlemen, is this: Is that | was
acting as a general partner in taking the initiative, after | had
been contacted and I've received letters that | have set aside in
there showing that my partnership had been with this man. |
took the initiative to assist in organizing the general partners
and I sent a letter dated February 24th, 1976 to the members of
the Gulf Coast Properties Group of which I knew. I didn’t
know all of them at the time and I’m not sure we know all of
them, and invited them to join with the action | had already
taken. In other words, | had already gone to the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 8 and there is a letter in
there from the SEC verifying that, inviting them to join me and
three others who had already decided we were going to do this,
in taking of Mr. Gallahan. | outlined the complaint. Now the
problem here is, it’s susceptible to interpretation or by detini-
tion, it’s a letter of solicitation to these general partners.
I called Rich Hennesee who I| understand is the staff attorney
tor the Grievance Committee and described to him this pro-
blem. I have contirmed yesterday over the telephone this con-
49a
2
}
q
:
4
j
SSA ap AR HO cai
versation with him. At the time I described the problem in the
abstract, however, and in essence, what it came down to is, |
asked him could I send a letter or could a friend send a letter or
an attorney send a letter inviting people to join in on an action.
If the person sending the letter is also a general partner, does
that give a privilege to the general partner to do something that
would otherwise be impermissible solicitation and he said, and
he verifies yes, today, that if it were done right, yes, meaning if
it were done right as he explained to me in our original convers-
tion, it had to be clear to the people who were receiving the let-
ter we are not under any pressure, this is just an invitation; that
the person sending the letter was also a general partner, so
therefore there was a possibility of conflict of interest and that
it was up to them to decide whether or not they wanted to join
in the action that had aleady started.
Basically the only motive being that it minimized expenses
and maximized effectiveness. Nobody, including me, has
enough money to do this alone. I don’t know any small group
-- everyone except me is in the Air Force and they’re just get-
ting a certain amount of money from the Air Force salary.
So at any rate, the net result of this was that most of the
members of the Gulf Coast Properties Group, in fact all I
believe except one, that we knew the identity of at that time
decided to join in this action. I have included in here letters,
gentlemen. What it comes down to is that letters that you have
that were sent to you and that were selected out by Gallahan’s
attorney are letters that on the face of it give a meaning which
is not the same meaning or context that will appear from
reading the background letters here that were sent by me or to
me or by Mr. Peppers and so on.
For example, Mr. Peppers in his June 6th letter, and he af-
firms that by affidavit with an attached copy of the letter af-
firms that he advised everybody that I was not a Colorado
licensed attorney and so on, and that I was associated with the
50a
wee aoe gsi Hah dea bleh
law firm and so on.
Now, one of the documents from Mr. Peppers -- | mean one
of the documents that you have been given is an authorization
and [ think it has a D at the top, which the partners of Gulf
Coast Properties Group, who hired Saunders, Snyder, Ross &
Dickson to represent them, all these people have signed this
statement and sent it in. Mr. Peppers attests in his affidavit, |
mean it’s true, Mr. Peppers took the initiative to write out this
authorization and without any consultation with me, sent it to
everyone and that’s why it happens to say Michael T. Rose and
gives my home address, but the authorization says that it’s hir-
ing the law firm -- the law firm to represent them and all
moneys for the Gulf Coast Properties Group or these partners
have been sent to the law firm of Saunders, Snyder, Ross &
Dickson, and put in the account. In other words, what this
comes down to, being the only partner in Colorado, and all
these people scattered all over the world, we’ve got one guy
who has $6,500 in it, I took the initiative after three people con-
tacted me and I knew there was evidence of wrongdoing to
assist Peppers and a guy named AI Sellers and a couple other
people to mobilize our resources and they hired the firm, they
paid the firm.
Now, when I got Gulf Coast -- when I decided that I thought
it might be a good idea for Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson
to represent Gulf Coast Properties, | followed my firm’s for-
mal procedures and that is, | happened to go to the head of the
law firm who is Mr. Glen Saunders, and told him about this
and in his words, he said, **‘Sounds like a piece of legitimate
business to me.’’ So | asked him who should be the attorney in
charge of it and in fact, there was information that the partner-
ship law that I myself didn’t have, which I| in particular wanted
to consult with somebody to get more information, and he told
me that the person most knowledgeable in the firm, the at-
torney that would be in charge of this, was Mr. Willard Snyder.
lie Ae eee RY,
Now, since that time on many occasions, several occasions, |
don’t know how many, but Mr. Snyder and I have at one time
or another discussed this. [I initially went to Mr. Snyder and
proposed to him a strategy which in effect he said was the
strategy that he agreed and that was two stages. In tact, I said
in letters to the members of Gulf Coast Properties Group, what
we do is to follow two steps. We would obtain information
about the status of the partnership and we would use the state
and Federal agencies to the extent we could to save us money,
so Leven before any of this happened, before anybody else got
involved, got in the SEC, to begin a formal investigation which
is now pending, and then I went over to the state SEC and to
the District Attorney’s Office and the Colorado Real Estate
Commission and all of them are now sull investigating this
group.
So my strategy was, which was agreed, the strategy that was
agreed on and what I informed them, ‘‘First we’ll get all the
facts and we’ll use the government agencies to the extent feasi-
ble to determine what the tacts are. Once we learn what the
status 1s, everybody will be notified what the status 1s and then
we'll decide what our alternatives are.’’
So there’s only three we can rescind, or whatever. So what it
comes down to, gentlemen, just to summarize, is that contrary
to what it seems, just in the vacuum of just reading these
documents which Gallahan’s attorney had selected out to send
here, | was not acting in my self-interest or solely my self-
interest in this, | was acting as a general partner who as a prac-
tical matter was the only available person, the only person in
Colorado that could take any initiative to help get back what
has turned out to be the conversion for almost a year now of
approximately $100,000. Well, K-1 Form says its $292,098. We
don’t know how much money is involved, we don’t know who
Our partners are, it’s not registered. All we know is that the
funds are no longer in our name and this Rocky Mountain
News article, and it’s in there, shows that too, but the funds
52a
I See
{
i bop v
An
since last summer have been in the name -- and property in the
name of someone else.
en fe tae we ;
_ Okay, now, finally gentlemen, I want to comment on
{ another matter because I think that it is relevant here, at least
_ goint to -- [ have addressed the merits of all these documents. |
have -- excuse me, I’ve missed one thing unintentionally and
; that was the letter from me to Colonel Sabar, last week or two
_ weeks ago, which I sent to him asking for an interview. I wrote
to Colonel Sabar asking to be interviewed so that I could join
the Judge Advocate Reserves.
Now, basically, gentlemen, I have an interest in military law
and that’s what I said in the letter and [ just thought if I’m go-
ing to be living here in Denver, it would be nice to be in
Reserves and have my hand in what’s going on. Colonel Sabar
used to be my instructor at the Air Force Academy.
The letter starts out, in a friendly tone, saying ‘‘Perhaps you
recall, in 1968 you were my instructor at the Air Force
Academy’’ and then in fact I did say ‘‘Obviously now I’m a
civilian attorney practicing law in Denver after having served a
year and a half in the Air Force.’’ I was not attempting to
represent to Colonal Sabar that I am a Colorado licensed at-
torney or that [ am on my own practicing law. I see that that is
the inference that one may take from that, and apparently one
of the claims that he did take from it, but it was just really an
unfortunate choice of words. It was a generic generalized
description of what I’m doing these days. In other words, if my
mother asked me what I’m doing, | tell her [’m practicing law
in Denver and it’s only in the attorney-client context or in
which [ have any kind of legal dealings or business dealings in
which it would be relevant that you specify that I’m not a
member of the Colorado Bar and that I’m working under the
supervision of Colorado licensed attorneys.
Now, I’ve t2ken precautions to avoid this inference. For ex-
| 53a
ample, this business card is what I show to people and it says
on there that I’m licensed only in Pennsylvania and California.
Furthermore, I’m not on the letterhead of the law firm sta-
tionery. I’m not on the outside plaque outside the door. I’ve
consulted with somebody about and been shown samples and
approved samples to order as invitations to announce that I
have joined Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, but I have not
even had them printed up yet, to wait to see if I passed the Bar
exam and I was going to be admitted to the Bar.
Of the 30-something statements I have in here, I think every
single one of them, if not every single one of them, almost
every single one of them, the people who write the statements
attest that they have personally heard me say that I am not
licensed to practice law as an attorney and they they have never
known me to do anything, and I have not ever done anything
that was not under the supervision of another Colorado licens-
ed attorney and that was not under the supervision of another
Colorado licensed attorney and that was even Mr. Bendelow or
Mr Bragg or Mr. Carrigan or a member of Saunders, Snyder,
Ross & Dickson.
Q_ (By Mr. Cisneros) Mr. Rose, do you have to be practic-
ing law in Colorado to be admitted to the SJA here?
A No. I was just about to say that. Furthermore, there’s no
possible motive for me to have misrepresented this to Colonel
Sabar. I only have to be a member of a state bar. In fact, the
Air Force regulations, and I include them in there, require that
as part of my application, when I would send in my applica-
tion, that | would show Colonel Sabar -- excuse me, that I
would state in an affidavit the chronology of all my legal ex-
perience and state what bars I’m admitted to and when. So I
wasn’t trying to tell Colonel Sabar and I have no possible
motive or no self gain for telling Colonel Sabar that I was a
member of the Colorado Bar and it just made no difference
whatsoever and I don’t have to be a member of the Colorado
Bar. All I was doing was, really it was a freindly letter. Now,
54a
4
.
I’ve been told by two sources, one of which is in a statement
and the other who tells me that he wishes to remain anonymous
because of a relationship with him, that it turns out that Col-
onel Saber has had some antagonism from me for a long time.
Now, let me explain that as an editor of New York Universi-
ty Law Review, I directed a two and a half year $18,000 study
of the five service academies and their disciplinary practices
which we published, got a lot of publicity. For example, you
may have heard the silence at West Point. Just last week | won
a U.S. Supreme Court decision five to three and it was in the
appropriate page of the Washington Post and last Thursday
evening it was on a national ABC news giving my opinion as to
why West Point now has a new cheating standard.
So what I’m saying, gentlemen, is that one of these
statements -- well, one last fact | want to tell you. No one on
this committee I’m told by Justice Groves knows, but Colonel
Sabar also took the initiative to send with his complaints an
October 18th, 1974 Rocky Mountain News article about me in
the Gensor, which Justice Groves did not forward because he
considered it to be irrelevant.
Now, what I’m saying, gentlemen, is that | don’t have very
many enemies in the world. I’m not trying to say that I do, but
| have two categories at the moment and one are certain of-
ficials from the Air Force because of an ongoing two or three
or four-year controversial thing that is stemming from this Law
Review article which has gotten a lot of publicity and just last
week the Supreme Court decision and so on has continued and
the second thing, now here’s Mr. Gallahan and Mr. Arnison
who are defendants in a lawsuit who were claiming things, like
in that letter than Mr. Arnison wrote which -- claiming that on
two different instances, I solicited business from him in which
all the other people in those meetings had said in statements
that they have now made that they heard nothing of the such.
bvcattii ealf
Now, one specific thing that I omitted that I should com-
ment on now, Mr. Arnison claims in his letter, in his hand-
writing there, that on December i Sth, 1975, i met in his house
with Paul Roach and William Secord, and his claim ts .hat dur-
ing the meeting I solicited or asked him to, or tried to talk him
into letting me represent him with regard to problems he has
with the Coors Company. Now, both these other gentlemen
plus me that were at this meeting recall and so state and they've
got it in their statements that nothing was said of the sort in
there. Mr. Arnison called me. He toid me that Mr. Dominico,
this multimillionaire out in Lakewood, the one I had just gone
to see if he would invest in my company, to save it or salvage it,
would probably not be able to make a decision about my com-
pany, whether he’d invest in it in adequate time to salvage the
company because the real decision maker is John Amato, the
CPA-lawyer, who was in California and wouldn’t come back
in time. He said, ‘‘Why don’t you come to my house, Mike?”’
This is John Arnison speaking. ‘‘We’ll talk about maybe I
would like to invest in the company”’ and ‘‘Furthermore,’’ he
said, ‘‘if we don’t invest in your company, I have problems
with the Coors Brewery Company up in Idaho and it’s a
breach, an inducement to breach a contract problem”’ so he
described it to me and he says, *‘Come in here and we'll discuss
it too.’’ So I did think I was going to Mr. Arnison’s house on
December 15th at his invitation to discuss both these, because |
was at the juncture if I didn’t get funds for the company, I'd
have to earn a living and I'd be practicing law. That’s the way
\’d earn a living, but | would do it as somebody’s associate or
for ali I knew I'd be going up to Idaho.
Like | went to Washington for two weeks representing the
Connecticut drug company on one piece of litigation, a
military injunction against the Food and Drug Administration
and I was admitted by the Federal Court just for that case. So,
in other words, even my going to discuss this was not any
wrongdoing contemplated on my part and Mr. Secord says in
there -- this is the first time I met Mr. Secord. Mr. Secord says
in his statement: I tracked him down at Fairmont Hotel in San
Francisco.
ten.
|
|
What I’m saying is, gentlemen, some of these things I’ve had
less than 48 hours to respond to. That’s why in my presentation
I was a little bit disjointed, but he affirms that-he even recalls
me telling him when I first met him I’m not a Colorado licensed
attorney and [’ll tell you, I can’t tell you how many times that
I’ve said that and I have a law clerk in my office who has got an
affidavit there that he recalls overhearing me, and I didn’t even
know this, saying on the phone, ‘‘No, I can’t do this, I’m nota
licensed attorney’’ or words to that effect.
So at any rate, those are the documents. Now the last -- those
are -- my comments on the documents. The last thing I’d like to
say, gentlemen, which casts doubt on the credibility of some of
Arnison’s statements here, not only -- for one thing, William
Secord was at the meeting, says, and I didn’t even know, he
told me over the phone and he says in his statement Arnison
has repeatedly lied. Amato, who is a CPA-lawyer says in a let-
ter here that the documents, investment proposal, that I en-
trusted him to go to Dominico were stolen in effect by Arnison
and given to Gallahan. That’s why we have a lawsuit. I know
this is a probably, maybe unecessarily complicated, but the
final thing I want to say is this: During the last two to three
weeks, certainly within the last three weeks, I’ve had the
following things happen to me contemporaneous with Mr.
Gallahan’s appearance before the Securities and Exchange
Commission. I’ve had two phone calls, long-distance, warning
me to be careful of my physical safety. I’ve had four different
ads in the classified ad section of the Denver Post advertising
the sale of my Datsun 260Z car for the ridiculously low price of
3250, not putting my phone number -- in fact, I’ve got those in
there too -- not putting my phone number, drop me a line, giv-
ing my address, nights after 9:00 p.m. There’s another ad that
says ‘‘Wealthy retired lawyer will do legal work cheap. Call
Mike’’ and gives my law firm number. There’s another ad that
advertises that [ am running a child day care center. 100
something pounds of hind quarter of a cow were ordered to be
57a
9
delivered to my house from a meat factory. Now, the person
who took the order, he’s formerly a Denver policeman named
Richard Perez. He told me he spoke for 20 minutes with the
person who ordered the meat. I suspect that it was Gallahan,
the guy that is our managing partner who now the evidence
shows has converted all this money to his own use.
I called Gallahan, he answered the phone, I called Perez and
asked him to call Gallahan. Perez called me back and said,
‘*[’m positive the voice I heard on the other end is Gallahan.”’
The former Denver policeman, I talked to him for 20
minutes. I’ve been around these things and I’m positive that
the voice, somebody called me up and said that my suit was
ready from the cleaners. | mean from the tailors. And finally
somebody arrived at my house at 10:30 p.m. one Monday even-
ing while I’m hearing on the phone a warning to be careful of
my physical safety.
Some guy arrives from a house cleaning company to say that
he had been instructed to arrive at 10:00 p.m. to discuss with
me arrangements to clean my house.
Now, contemporaneous with this, you have a mailgram there
from Peppers in which he called me last night and he says,
‘Mike, I’ve been thinking about this.’” The last conversation |
had with Gallahan, now that the SEC investigation is taken
care of, ‘‘We’re going to get Rose.’”’
I’m saying now, you received all this stuff, you’ve got the
Statements from Gallahan’s attorney, from Gallahan, none of
the members of Gulf Coast Properties Group were complain-
ing here. You’ve got statements that turn on my credibility ver-
sus Arnison’s and if you read this 30-some statements saying
people have known me, reputable people in the community,
like one of the deans at DU Law School, that they have known
me for years, that they have never heard of anything or seen me
do anything to cast doubt on my integrity and then you’ve gota
guy saying I’m completely a blemish on the legal profession
and so on. That’s exactly what he says.
Anyway, gentlemen, the final thing I’d like to say is, Justice
Groves informs me that other materials that he deemed not
relevant to this, making further allegations against me which I
don’t even know the identity of have come from even an
unknown source. So suddenly what I’m saying is that Gallahan
and his group knows that, you know, that I’m being considered
for admission to the Bar and now they’ve seen fit to orient this
stuff here.
Now, the last thing I’d like to say, gentlemen, is that there
have been several specific occasions in which these affidavits
and statements show that I’ve gone out of my way to insure
that I’ve complied fully with the ethical requirements for being
admitted to the Bar or for law firm practicing law or whatever.
As two or three specific examples: One of the affidavits in there
show that an army lawyer out in California sent to me a case
for recovery for about 500 prospective plaintiffs, recovery of
back pay from people who were in the military and wanted to
know if I’d take it. So we evaluated it in our firm following
routine procedures and decided we did want to take it and
decided the terms upon which we would take it.
Then this lawyer back there in California attests that I in-
structed him that, ‘‘Look, you guys have got to organize the
plaintiffs. All we do is -- you asked us, we’re going to take it
and here are our terms and you organize it’’ because I know
and I even took the time to look up and to give to Mr. Saunders
a copy of the Colorado Bar Association ethical rules or the
Supreme Court of Colorado ethical rules as to what extent a
law firm cooperates with a class action suit.
59a
‘
eet maf
Now, secondly, Mr. Al Zinn, who is Gallahan’s attorney,
called me or he had someone call me, in other words the same
people who sent all this stuff to you, and asked me to meet with
him to discuss the problems with my Legal Service Plan Com-
pany and the Gulf Coast Properties Group, and a third pro-
- blem.
The house that I bought from Gallahan -- that I bought in
July, it happens to be one formerly owned by Gallahan, the
guy that’s financing my company. I have an affidavit from
Doug Bragg there saying that I asked him to be my attorney in
that meeting. We did have the meeting and that he in fact did
go to the meeting and he was the attorney representing Group
Legal Services of America and that during that entire meeting,
in other words, the only interaction I’ve had with Gallahan’s
attorney on this at all is in a capacity in which I had an attorney
representing -- participating as a lawyer and I was acting as
principal and he says throughout that I was making policy set-
tings for Group Legal Service of America and Gulf Coast Pro-
perties Group as a general partner and also wherther or not
Gallahan is going to get the stuff he’s left in my basement and
my garage for now some nirie months.
Now, the final thing is, gentlemen, is that both an attorney
named Michael Buttes and an attorney named Richard Dally
and Ed Felter, who is the Assistant Attorney General in charge
of prosecuting, among other things, prosecuting under
authorized practice of law, have attested in there and I| con-
tacted them, I contacted Mr. Felter to say I’m president and
stockholder in Group Legal Service of America. This is back in
March of ’76, right after the Bar exam. ‘‘We need to bring a
lawsuit now against Arnison and against Gallahan because they
won’t give us our corporate records and we can’t fill out our in-
come tax status and so on. Is it permissible for me to represent
this company pro se or must the Colorado licensed attorney
represent the corporation.
60a
eeheididiedeti tn
The conclusion was, the Colorado licensed attorney had to
represent the corporation. My only motive for wanting to repre-
sent it pro se is the company had no funds and if we got a Col-
orado licensed attorney to do it, |, Mike Rose, would have to
pay for it out of my own pocket. That is in fact what we’ve
- done.
The company hired Richard Dally and in fact, he has
_ brought the lawsuit. So what I’m saying is, every time that
there’s been a juncture in which there is either as a principal or
aS an associate in the law firm in which I am an employee and
working under other people’s direction, some ethical problem
that might arise, I have these statements of support, been sen-
sitive to it, and I’ve gone out of my way even at cost to me, out
of my own pocket, I wound up having to hire this attorney to
bring a lawsuit when, you know, if I can argue and be paid
2,000 a week really by Connecticut drug company to represent
it against the Food and Drug Administration in Federal Court,
| suppose I could have gotten a writ of replevin in a Colorado
Court, but instead | wound up paying my own attorney money
to get an attorney because it’s required by the ethical rules that
I do so.
The final thing is, gentlemen, you know, what’s at issue
here, I guess, is my integrity or my character and fitness to
practice law before the State of Colorado. I do not think I’ve
been appointed, graduated from the Colorado Air Force
Academy, become a member of the California, Pennsylvania
Bars and wouldn’t have a stack of 30-something statements by
virtually everyone who’s dealt with me except my two groups
of adversaries attesting to my having moral standards and in-
tegrity above reproach if there was not merit to that proposition.
So all I can say is that, you know, between the company col-
lapsing and taking the Colorado Bar and finding a job and
becoming a new member of a law firm as an employee and try-
ing to find a job and becoming a new member of a law firm as
6la
Tae
an employee and trying to wind up my company affairs and so
on, I’ve had a very complicated life and it’s been very over-
whelming and I haven’t -- you know, in retrospect, there have
been some things that | might have worded differently or might
have said differently, but I’ve always, this evidence will show,
I’ve gone out of my way to make sure that what | was doing
was the proper thing to do, in accordance with the Bar Associa-
- tion ethical rules and so on.
Q (By Mr. Cisneros) Mr Rose --
A There is one other thing I should say, gentlemen. As a
result of -- for the last six months I’ve been in a continuing
stream of controversy, the company collapses, and I want tu
tell you that as a result of this controversy, this morning I’ve
lost my job. So I’m no longer employed by Saunders.
Q When were you admitted to practice law in California?
A | was admitted -- I’m not sure. I’m sure it would be on my
application, but that was in 1975. I was admitted in Penn-
sylvania in 1973.
Q You took the Bar in California?
A Yes, I did. I took the Bar in California a year ago.
Q How long did you live there?
A Well, I only lived in California really not more than four
months. See, in an eight-month period of time | moved from
New Jersey when [ got out of the Air Force to Washingion. I
was immediately hired by the Connecticut drug company. [| was
hired by the Connecticut drug company because of this con-
troversy n the Air Force. The president of the company saw me
on CBS and flew me out and I took the job. So I was seven
months in Washington. Then I decided, okay, I’m going to live
62a
| now in California. So I went to California about November
Ist, °74 and I stayed there through about April Ist, '75 and --
Q Now, you intended to, when you took the Bar, practice
law in California?
A Absolutely. That’s the only reason [ had gone through all
that and furthermore, I had job offers from two firms. I mean,
they were kind of -- by the time they invite you back three or
four times and were talking seriously about it, so in other
words, it was all but a job offer.
Then Gallahan whom I had never met showed up and offered
me this job out here.
Q How long have you been in Colorado?
A Well, I came here for about three or four days in March
and then I came here from California in April of '75 and it
wasn’t until June, in other words, I didn’t have my belongings
here until June and I spent at least half the time out of state. In
other words, I went, for example, to a conference, American
Bar Association conference in New Orleans in May of '75 on
prepaid Legal Service Plan, and then [ went all over California
-- in fact, during May, here’s what I did in May. It’s just now
coming back to me. I visited Legal Service Plans’ operation in
Washington D.C., Columbus, Ohio, Northern California, Los
Angeles, and went to this three or four or five-day conference
in New Orleans.
So what I’m saying is, I drove my car out here, parked it,
talked with my new employer. My belongings weren't out here
vet. He wasn’t charging me any rent. I was living with him. Put
my clothes there and I[ was going all around.
So the only reason, you know, instead of having my -- you
know, I used his address as an address, to get my mail, is what
43a
it comes down to.
Q You've been working for the firm how long now?
A Well, I’ve been working with Saunders, Snyder, Ross &
Dickson since January 14th, ’76. Since mid-December of ’75
through January 14th, I worked simultaneously for Carrigan
and Bragg and also for Ted Bendelow.
Q So the February Bar was the first opportunity you’ve had
to take the Bar?
A Well, no. I’ve had an opportunity in the summer of 1975,
but not only was I running around to all these 15 states and too
busy to do it, but I intentionally did not take the Colorado Bar.
[ just didn’t want to be closed whatsoever to practicing .aw
while I was running the Legal Service Plan.
One thing I forgot to tell you, gentlemen, I also got in touch
with Charles Fredrickson, as the evidence shows, and told him
that, the fall of ’75, that now I was contemplating taking the
Colorado Bar and basically I was having misgivings about the
security of my company because I was having doubts about
whether or not this financer, his payments coming in on time,
is what it came down to.
I asked him if it would be permissable as a matter of bar
ethics for me to be president of a company which was a Legai
Service Plan Company and practicing law in Colorado as a
common licensed attorney at the same time, if I were not giving
legal services to anyone asking from the Legal Service Plan. He
steered me to Mr. -- I believe it’s Paynter, who is the new Ethics
Committee chairman in Colorado Springs and you have a letter
from him dated November 8th, ’75 to me saying in response to
my inquiry he advises me that I could as a Colorado licensed at-
torney practice law and be president of the company at the
same time as long as I was not providing services to the
members of the Plan.
So, in other words, again, I was sensitive to the issue and I
was trying to decide whether to take the Colorado Bar and at
that time, then I was still assuming my company might be in
progress, but I was having soime doubts. That’s why I inquired,
but then the company collapsed and [ said well, my only alter-
native now, I don’t want to go back to California. I like Col-
orado better, so I’ll take the Bar exam.
Q Do you have any idea why you were laid off, other than
the publicity?
A Well, yes, I do, and I would explain. Mr. Snyder here, of
course can say also, but in March, when I joined as an associate
of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & Dickson, first of ail, let me say
that I think Mr. Snyder would be the first to tell you it has
nothing to do with any misgivings about my integrity or fitness
to practice law in Colorado, but Mr. Saunders, who is the
president of the firm, told me when I came to the firm that in
effect ‘*‘We have a family here and we help each other out’’ and
this sort of thing. And I really took that seriously and when the
Bar exam was on, I then came and said, ‘‘Listen, I’ve got my
own personal problems. I’ve got this company and it’s 20,000
in debt and I’m president of it. We’ve got to wind it down and
we can’t get our corporate records.’’ I said, ‘*I found out that a
Colorado licensed attorney has to be the attorney of record to
sue in behalf of the corporation’”’ and asked Mr. Saunders if an
attorney in the firm could do it. ‘‘Yes, Bill Kirven will do it.”’
So I went to Bill Kirven and Bill said, ‘‘Okay, Mike, you’re like
a research assistant and I'll review it, edit it, approve it and so
on.’’ When he wrote the complaint out, Mr. Saunders read it,
unbeknownst to me, he expressed to me unhappiness that --
what it came down to is nobody really realized how much of
my own work I had to do. Now, he said, ‘‘Just get that out of
the firm’’ and in fact I did. I took that then to Richard Dally so
my stance was, they warned me, ‘‘Now, if you get involved in
personal things at the expense of the firm any more -- ’’ in et-
fect I’m fired. In fact, Mr. Saunders walked into my office and
65a
told me, ‘‘You’re fired’’ or ‘‘We’re going to terminate you”’
_ and then we discussed it afterwards. That was in March.
So what I’ve done, in my judgement, since then, gentlemen,
is, | knew I was on probation. I knew I had these personal pro-
blems, but I tried to keep them out of the firm and in fact, until
today, I’ve kept them out of the firm until this has come up and
what I did was, about three days ago when I was first notified
of it, | told Wayne Fowler my problems. I’m under obligation
to tell my employer, but I got enough probiems without confu-
sion in my firm, so I went to Wayne and said, ‘‘This is the
situation. Can we keep it between you and me?’’ And he made
the judgement.
Now, this morning Mr. Saunders for the first time found out
that I was here and he has not heard any of my defense, no one
has heard, now Mr. Snyder has, my defense, or seen any of
these documents. All they’ve seen is the documents that you
have and the documents that you have, all I know is Mr.
Saunders has told me that my method of doing things and their
method of doing things are not compatible; that there’s no
animosity here; that he says he has great respect for my talents,
but in essence, I’m qualified in other things.
Now, I might add, gentlemen, that as the record shows,
when I was warned of this in March, I even went so far, I
mean, as the time sheets show, I put in over 230 billable hours
in my firm in one month, where Mr. Fowler was telling me it’s
160 or 180 average for an attorney. In other words, I had my
personal problems, but I took them out of the firm because I
was warned to do that, and I kept up my duties, but at the same
time I was just working around the clock. I mean, I’ve got this
company collapse and I’ve got the incorne taxes to answer and
sO forth.
So anyway, all I know is, I’m sure Mr. Snyder would be
more privy than I was. All I know is Mr. Saunders walked in
66a
this morning and asked me to come to the office and there were
three or four people there and they told me | was terminated
and the only other clues I have is what I’ve already just got
through stating.
MR. CISNEROS: That’s all the questions I have.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Any other members of the
Committee have a question?
MR. STUBBS: I think I'd like to hear from Mr. Snyder, if
he would like to say anything.
MR. SNYDER: Well, I might just say this: Mike Rose was
employed by our firm in the middle of January of this year and
it is correct that he was terminated this morning.
| would just add a little bit to that and that would be this: I
think he has very, very considerable ability, but somehow or
other, he has not fit into the firm. We had a lengthy discussion
of problems and methods of proceeding in the middle of
March, with Mr. Rose. He has his own way of doing things and
| don’t say it’s right or wrong or anything like that, but it’s dif-
ferent than the way we do things in our firm and the understan-
ding had been at that time there was going to be a change in
wavs.
The observation has been that fundamentally there has not
been a change in ways and consequently the termination took
place and that was this morning. That’s about aii I have to say.
MR STUBBS: Would you and other members of your firm
be willing to recommend Mr. Rose for admission to the Col-
orado Bar?
MR. SNYDER: I think so. We’re not prepared to employ
him ourselves. As I say, different people have different ideas
67a
how to proceed. I just don’t think he works out for us. I think
he's something of a crusader, just my personal opinion, and |
have nothing against crusaders except that we have business to
do in our firm and we’ve got our way of doing it and we intend
to do it our way and not his and the thing that disturbed me,
speaking of my own personal opinion, is that notwithstanding
the fact that the thing was taken up with him very extensively
and the time of numerous members of the firm was spent upon
the subject, he did not change his ways and consequently we
have come to this impasse.
MR. STUBBS: I don’t feel free, Mr. Snyder, to interrogate
you closely. [ only want you to say what you feel free to say,
but have indicated that his ways are different than yours and it
would be helpful to me if I knew why they were different, in
what manner and what respect they differ. But again, I’m not
urging you to violate any confidence and I only want you to say
what you feel completely free to say.
MR. SNYDER: Weil, I don’t know that I can add too much
to it. | would generally say that his approach to the problem is
a very personal thing. It takes on the personal character rather
than the objectivity that I seek, speaking only for myself, and
in this particular, his approach is entirely different and |
believe in objectivity and believe in it strongly.
MR. CISNEROS: There’s nothing about the integrity of
Mr. Rose?
MR. SNYDER: No. I’m not questioning his integrity. I’m
simply saying his approach to the problem is inconsistent with
ours.
MR. STUBBS: Thank you, Mr. Snyder.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: You believe that the people
who have complained about your unauthorized practice of law
68a
have some personal vendetta against you and that that is the
reason they say that they interpret, for instance, a letter from
you, *‘Now, I’m a civilian practicing law in Denver’’? That was
a letter -- | have reference to a letter addressed to Colonel Alan
Saber dated April 9, 1976. You believe that because he didn’t
like you personally or he had some personal grievance against
you that he elects to interpret that as your telling him that you
are a Colorado lawyer?
MR. ROSE: Sir, let me say that I'm not trying to -- | mean,
i'll answer your question. I’m not trying to focus on what I
have done or not Gone. So basically Colonel Sabar’s or anyone
else’s Motivation as to why they reported me is for the most
part irrelevant. Their motivation as to whether or not
statements they say, [’m talking about John Arnison, that I did
such and such, and I say I didn’t do such and such, motiva-
tions, is relevant to whether or not his statements are credible.
But anyway, I don’t -- I have my own opinion that Colone!
Sabar, who I’m told now has kept a file on me, sends a
newspaper article that’s irrelevant, two years old, along with
this, that he is a career officer who -- that’s the only officers
that get assigned to the Air Force Academy as instructors, that
he, I've been told, that by someone who used to work for him,
that he feels I’ve been disloval and so on and so on, and my
personal opinion is that that has motivated him to send this in.
However, let me emphasize that anyone reading the statement
I'm a civilian lawyer practicing law in Denver could infer ex-
actly what Colonel Saber said and [’m not saying that I did not
use the wrong choice of words, I’m saying I have not been
practicing law in Denver, out of another attorney’s supervison.
| was not trying to represent that to him. [I had no motive for
doing it. | was just giving a generic generalized description of
what I’m doing these days. In fact, I’m practicing law, but I'm
doing it under another attorney's supervision.
Now, I have a guy named Joe that I just met the other day,
told me he had a problem with a deed and I was talking with
him and he said, ‘‘What do you do?"* And I said, *‘Well, I’m in
this law firm’’ and I said, ‘‘I'm not a Colorado licensed at-
torney’’ and I said, ‘“‘Here’s my card. If you want a question,
feel free to call’’ and he called.
So what I’m saying is that these statements will show,
gentlemen, that | have gone out of my way carefully to try to
avoid any misrepresentation. I've never said that I was a Col-
orado licensed attorney. I have never meant to imply that | was
an autonomous attorney practicing law here. That statement is
susceptible to that interpretation and I wholeheartedly concede
that. | made a mistake in saying that. [t was not the context. I
was asking for an interview. I wasn’t asking for anything else. |
wasn’t in an attorney-client relationship with him and I wasn’t
trying to get any business from him and I knew that he was go-
ing to know by affidavit what Bars | was admitted to and what
their chronology was of my legal experience.
At any rate, I guess that’s a lengthy answer to your question,
but I think personally from what I know of Colonel Saber, that
that was his motivation, the report made, because he, in sen-
ding in the article and so on, because he is offended by me.
That’s irrelevant to the merits of what I did, you know, and I
used the wrong choice of words. That's all there is to it.
MR. STUBBS: Mike, on the case that you just referred to
where somebody asked you about a deed, you gave them your
card and you said something about ‘*You may call me’’ and he
did call you?
MR. ROSE: Right.
MR. STUBBS: What did you do for him and how did you
handle it?
MR. ROSE: Well, to be honest with you, this -- well, I’m be-
ing honest with you throughout this, but this is this week and
when he called me, he wanted to talk and I said -- I was in the
middle of this. I had just been given these charges and | said,
‘IT can’t talk to you right now. Call me back tomorrow’’ and he
hasn’t called. |
What I would have done if he had called back is to steer him
-- | would ask Mr. Saunders or somebody who he should talk
to. There’s lawyers all up and down my hall, so I know I’m not
the attorney, the others are the attorneys, and I take
assignments from other people. However, let me say als”
though, that I mean, like here’s a typical interaction.
Wayne Fowler assigns me something and he says, ‘‘Now,
you call (so and so) at the hospital and ask what these facts are
or if they returned this stuff.’’ So I call them up and say, ‘‘l am
working for Wayne Fowler,’’ so on, so what I’m saying is, only
after checking with Charles Fredrickson, chairman of the
Ethics Committee, as verified by his statement and Ed Felter,
and later Rich Hennesee, did I -- I wasn’t going to do anything
until I found out what I could or couldn’t do and I was under
the impression that I could interact with clients and I could sign
letters on law firm stationery as long as I was not on the let-
terhead of the stationery; as long as it was clear that I was
Operating under another attorney’s supervision and in fact,
what I’m telling this Committee is that is what I honestly
believe I’ve been going the entire time I’ve been here in
Colorado.
MR. STUBBS: I’m curious about another point. You refer-
red to Yablonski, the man you referred to as the managing
partner of the partnership.
MR. ROSE: Gallahan.
MR. STUBBS: Gallahan, excuse me.
MR. ROSE: He’s not an attorney.
MR. STUBBS: You’ve referred to him, I believe, as the
managing partner. You’ve referred to yourself as a general
partner. Now, is that correct?
MR. ROSE: That’s correct.
MR. STUBBS: And what’s the distinguishing --
MR. ROSE: Well, the reason I used these terms, sir, is that
we're not really sure what we have. You see, we sent Gallahan
our money and in my contract, I had a two-page contract, I
was leery of sending money in a partnership in which I don’t
have an agreement. However, this guy was an Air Academy
graduate and a guy I greatly respect. Don Peppers was number
one in his class, highly reeommednded, and this guy Gallahan
just put together the Gold Rush, a 3.2 nightclub out at Sixth
and Sheridan. In fact, he had a lot of things that were at least
temporarily successful, so I told Peppers of my misgivings so I
put a clause in my agreement that if within 30 days I did not get
a partnership agreement, I would get my mciiey back. None of
the other people did that.
So in this solicitation material, sometimes it was referred to
as a joint venture, sometimes as a general partnership, and he
referred to himself as managing partner, like on the cover of
the booklet.
Well, I said a joint venture, do we have a limited partnership
Or general partnership and what are the terms. The fact is,
under a general partnership, my understanding is that all part-
ners have co-equal rights to manage the partnership and fur-
thermore, no partner can receive compensation for any services
they provide for the partnership in the absence of an agree-
ment, which Gallahan has been helping himself to.
72a
So I refer to him as managing partner because de facto the
noney has been sent to him and he’s been claiming he’s mana-
zing partner. The K-1 Form for 1974 sent to all the partners .1-
sluding me says we’ve got a general partnership. That’s the on-
'y evidence I’ve got of what we've got. I know it’s a partnership
because it’s referred to as a joint venture and general partner-
ship on stationery, so at any rate, what I started doing is say-
ing, ‘‘Look, I’m undeniably a partner and a general partner so
| want to see a record. I want to copy them, have an accounting
of how the money has been spent.”’
So to this day all that’s been denied. So what I’m saying, that
mobilized me, these other people, that we’ve got a whole year
without an agreement -- excuse me, sir, what really precipitated
this was in November of ’75, and I have a letter in those
documents, in November of ’75 Gallahan sent a letter to
everyone saying, ‘‘As managing partner of Gulf Coast Proper-
ties Group, I’ve taken the liberty to make a major decision for
the parnership.’” What he did is sell out all our property in
Mississippi and he claims to be buying stuff in Perry Park, Col-
orado and Manzanillo. It turns out he put it in his and his
father’s name and it’s been that way six or eight months.
What I’m saying, I’m not sure what the lega! relationship is
and it was kind of confused so I just figured that these agencies
would sort it out for us at their expense.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: The letter to me, like your
letter to Hargrave, on February 24 of this year, in which you,
without the knowledge of your background and without the
knowledge of the fact that you were admitted in other states
and that you were with the firm under supervision of a Col-
orado lawyer, you would say, ‘‘Because apparently I’m the on-
y partner in Colorado and the only lawyer in the group, our
Sollective interest might best be served by Gulf Coast Proper-
es and its members being represented by me and my law firm’’
and you give the name of the firm here in Denver. That to me
73a
would mean that you’re holding yourself out as a Colorado
lawyer.
If I knew the background, if you went on to explain that
‘I’m not a Colorado lawyer. I’m admitted in other states’’ I
would have a different impression, but my offhand impression
in reading that without that knowledge would be that this
fellow was holding himself out as a lawyer and he has just
taken the February Bar exam. I know he’s not admitted.
MR. ROSE: Yes sir. I agree with you. The one assumption,
what you said, though, one crucial assumption is not accurate
and that is, sir, | have in there attached to an affidavit from
Peppers, and along with a couple other partners’ statements so
attesting that my background was known and I[ knew my
background was known to these partners because Peppers in a
letter dated either January 4th or January 6, °76 had sent to
them a four-page single spaced typed letter outlining all the
problems of Gulf Coast Properties Group and saying that I was
not -- saying I was just taking the Colorado Bar exam: that I
was not yet a member of the Colorado Bar and that [ had just
become associated with a law firm and there were other -- in
other words, I knew that this stuff had been sent out.
Now, what I’m saying is, my opinion is that is the only
mistake that I can recall as far as choice of order, and the only
mistakes that [ know that I just would do differently is that in
the Colonel Saber letter, I would not say I’m practicing law in
Denver.
Secondly, that letter on the face of it standing alone does
have the interpretation that you suggest and when I wrote it, I
knew that these letters, | had them in my file, and I received
copies of complaints from other people and so on, and that’s
why I’m saying that these documents in here with the letters
from the people who received them saying what they
understood put a different context and meaning on that than
74a
what appears from the face of reading tha February 24th letter.
I might add, sir, that I’ve had Al Sellers, one of the general
partners or one of the partners who knows Hargrave well, Mr.
Sellers called Mr. Hargrave, and Mr. Hargrave, I’m not sure
whether this would be considered relevant or not, but Mr.
Hargrave says that he was not complaining of this. What he
did, he’s a good friend of Gallahan’s. Gailahan asked him to
forward it to him and he forwarded this stuff to Gallahan not
knowing what would be done with it and Gallahan’s attorney
has forwarded it to this Committee.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Are there any other ques-
tions?
MR.HILL: I don’t feel sufficiently advised as to the com-
plaint here to be sure that I know what is covered. Apparently
one is holding himself out as an attorney. Is there other
soliciting business? What are they? If vou'd tell me just, if you
can, briefly the charges here that we’re considering.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Roger, can you answer?
MR. ROSE: I don’t believe, sir, that those letters really in-
dicate what the charges are.
MR. CISNEROS: I think maybe you have a copy of a letter
trom Justice Groves dated April 22nd, 1976 which is addressed
to Mr. Rose and the essential part of it, the reason it says for
his requested appearance is that ‘‘The Bar Committee is further
investigating your ethical and moral qualifications for admis-
sion to the Bar in light of your letter to the Bar’’ which is the
letter that we quoted, and of Captain Michael R. Watts’ af-
fidavit dated June 6, 1975.
MR. SHERMAN: What ts the date of that letter vou’re talk-
ing about?
75a
MR. CISNEROS: This is April 22nd, 1976. That’s the only
letter you received from Justice Groves?
MR. ROSE: No, sir. I received at least three letters from
Mr. Groves.
MR. CISNEROS: Then today we got this letter from, also
Justice Groves, regarding the letter from Colonel Roberts, and
| think that’s in connection with the work that you did for Mr.
Peppers.
MR. ROSE: That’s right
MR. HILL: Then the charges here (1) relates to holding
himself out as a lawyer in this letter, but he admitted he was
practicing law in Colorado by that letter and that he apparently
acted as counsel in some case for a serviceman?
MR. CISNEROS: I don’t think this has anything to do with
practicing law because I think you don’t have to be a lawyer to -
MR. HILL: I wondered about that.
MR. ROSE: The charges, [ believe, sir, that I did have
to be a lawyer and I was holding myself out. Now, what I’m
saying is that I was not intending to hold myself out to that and
| don’t believe that I had to be a member of the Colorado Bar
in order to deal with the general accounting office or Con-
troller General’s Office and so on.
See, it’s not even clear where I was. What I’m saying is that
it’s not like I had been here six months and I had a house and I
was really a resident. I was really in a transient status and this
tile comes here in Colorado and we moved around a great deal
within that 12-month period of time and he just asked me to
help him on this.
76a
Then I call a Colorado licensed attorney, my friend David
Wagner, and [ might add, gentlemen, that he’s volunteered to
come and testify here and Charles Fredrickson about what he
advised me and in fact, I have a list of ten people that will just
volunteer to come and testify and I’ve gone through this,
throughout my stay here, I can't tell you how many times that
I've told people like Jack Olson of the Rocky Mountain News
that when he started talking to me, I told him I was not a Col-
orado licensed attorney, handed him my card and pointed to
the part that said admitted only in California and Penn-
syivania. I just, as a routine procedure, have a law clerk in the
otfice who’s heard me savy this over the phone and there must
be at least 25 people in there that say they've heard me tell
other people I’m not a Colorado licensed attorney and I’m not
practicing law or something of that substance.
At any rate, when Peppers came here and he asked me for
my advice on this and I consulted Wagner and since Wagner is
in Washington, he went to Judge Advocate General's Office,
since | was here | made a Colorado phone call. Since I dealt
with Federal military law and was under Wagner's supervision,
and he so attests and he’s a Colorado licensed attorney and
really involving multi-state transactions, since Peppers’ gone
back to Ohio and I'm just flying all over the country, and the
only thing I’ve done, I get free rent when I'm here at Colorado
at Gallahan’s house at 953 Fillmore Street.
Anyway, I’m just being redundant.
MR. CISNEROS: It is true that Captain Watts is the one
who complains about that.
MR. ROSE: That's what I infer trom that affidavit, sir. I
might add, sir, that the affidavit was written on June Sth. Now,
what I’m saving is, I’m told by two different sources, one of
which is in a statement here, that those who used to work
77a
Colonel Sabar’s office know he was keeping a file of my --
those newspaper records and he’s complained about me
repeatedly and so on, and that I would think that therefore, I
mean, this affidavit was written on June Sth. It’s not like Col-
onel Sabar thought of it later.
Well, let’s put it this way: It’s one of these attorneys -- as Mr.
Moye said, it appears they might have been building a case on
me.
MR. CISNEROS: Is this in 1975?
MR. ROSE: Yes, sir. The affidavit was made -- it says six
days after the phone call.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Would you for the record
give us the names of the persons who you said you had a list of
who would be willing to come to testify?
MR. ROSE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: And say who they are?
MR. ROSE: Yes. I don’t know that anyone would not be
willing to testify. [ just know the people who volunteered. One
is Don Peppers. In fact, Mr. Peppers is waiting in Ohio by his
telephone right now at his home for a call from this Committee
if they wish to question him. Another is David Wagner. David
Wagner is over at the Colorado Supreme Court Library right
now. Mr. Peppers is the person I made the phone call in behalf
of. David Wagner is the Colorado licensed attorney who I
called in Washington and whose affidavit, as his affidavit
shows, assumes responsibility for this. Another is Charles
Fredrickson. Charles Fredrickson is the former chairman of
the Colorado Bar Ethics Committee with whom I have spent a
great deal of time discussing the Bar Association ethics rules as
78a
it pertains to my company’s Legal Service Plan to obtain some
sort of clearance, make sure that we were operating in accor-
dance with the ethical rules and he’s a person who has a state-
ment in the record here that shows --verifies last fail I consulted
and he advised me what the parameters of an out-of-state at-
torney not licensed in Colorado could or could not do.
Also is John Amato. John Amato is a CPA-lawyer whose of-
fices are on Washington Street, whose affidavit shows that dur-
ing the discussions that I had in November, December, 1975,
with him and Vince Dominico.
At no time, no one at any time discussed anyone performing
any legal services for anyone; rather, to the contrary to what
Mr. John Arnison alleges in his complaint to me. That is the
guy that was the defendant in my company’s lawsuit, rather,
the only thing we discussed was whether or not Mr. Dominico
and Mr. Arnato were interested in investing in my Legal Service
Plan Company, hopefully to try to salvage it.
Also Mr. William Secord. Mr. William Secord is a captain in
the Naval Reserves who is vice-president of the Talbert Cor-
poration, which I believe is an insurance company here in
Denver and he was present at the December 15th, 1975 meeting
with also John Arnison and Paul Roach, and Paul Roach, who
also says he’s happy to testify, and William Secord, will both
testify and they both say in their statement that at no time dur-
ing my meeting with John Arnison did anyone discuss anyone
performing legal services for anybody. On the contrary, the
sole content of the discussion --
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: You’ve covered this. Just
state briefly who the people are.
MR. ROSE: Also Doug Bragg. Doug Bragg is a Colorado at-
torney, a partner in Carrigan and Bragg for whom I worked
during January of °76.
79a
Also Mr. Dennis Farnsworth. Dennis Farnsworth is pro-
bably the person with whom I had the greatest amount of
association during the eight months or so life span of Legal
Service Plan Company because he was our consultant, and his
affidavit shows we were in daily contact, went on business trips
together, and in his words, I was meticulous about avoiding
any inference that I was a Colorado licensed attorney.
I suppose lastly would be Mr. Andrew Blair here, and Mr.
Blair was the attorney for my company and Mr. Farnsworth
says in his affidavit that he was even irritated that I would go to
Mr. Blair to have him perform legal services for my companv
at Our expense instead of doing what Mr. Farnsworth thought I
as an attorney was capable of doing myself. That was a cons-
tant matter, ad as Mr. Blair would attest, now we have run up
$5,000 worth of !egal fees using his law firm to incorporate us
into various things that a Colorado licensed attorney must do,
to the irritation of Gallahan.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: You've referred to the record
here and I presume that’s the stack of papers that are there on
the front of the desk.
MR. ROSE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Are vou leaving that for the
Committee?
MR. ROSE: I’m leaving that, sir. | have a copy of the state-
ment which I made. I do not have a copy of the rest of it, but
it's, you know, what I’ve been able to amass in this short notice
(0 support what I’m now saying. I’m leaving that.
MR. STUBBS: Possibly you'd like to be selective in what
vou leave.
80a
MR. ROSE: I know, sir, that it seems with that volume that
I’m probably not selective but the fact is, I selected out of a lot
of stuff to come to that. All I can say, gentlemen, is that I take
this proceeding seriously. In fact, | don’t know anything that
I’ve been before that is as serious as this in my memory so
basically the charges have come from two basic different
sources. There’s an aggregate of this, has very serious conse-
quences, of great magnitude for my life, for the rest of my life,
SO --
MR. STUBBS: Just to get to the point, my thought was
maybe you would like to just pick out what you want to leave
here with the Committee.
MR. ROSE: The point [’m making, sir, | want to leave all of
that. All of that is relevant.
MR. STUBBS: That’s fine.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: All right. Anyone else have a
question?
MR. SHERMAN: What is this Gulf Coast Properties? What
is it?
MR. ROSE: It is a --
MR. SHERMAN: I’ve been sitting her wondering what
you've been talking about. What does it consist of? Don’t go
into detail.
MR. ROSE: Okay sir. [t’s a reai estate partnership in which
moneys from at least 18 people all over the country were given
to Gallahan to buy a ten percent interest in a hotel recreation
complex in Mississippi from a gentleman who owned it named
Lee Stubblefield.
8la
MR. HILL: Is there some charge here of soliciting business
too? Is that one of the inferences?
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Some of the material! --
MR. SHERMAN: Indicates that but --
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: You might have inferred it,
but there isn’t any charge like that.
MR. HILL: So the real question that we're to decide is do we
think that there was a representation that he was a practicing
lawyer ana was admitted to practice in Colorado?
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Unauthorized practice of
law.
MR. CISNEROS: Right.
MR. HILL: He engaged in unauthorized practice of law in
Colorado?
MR. CISNEROS: This is my thought.
MR. HILL: Is that the issue?
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Of course, the issue is
whether or not, if he actually was, then does that result in his
being fit to practice law in Colorado morally and qualified to
practice law in Colorado and what would we recommend with
respect to his admission to the Court.
MR. HILL: All right.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Do you have any statement,
Andy?
82a
MR. BLAIR: No, Mr. Houtchens, I don’t. I thing Mike said
it all.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Anyone else have anything to
sav? (No response)
If not, | guess we are adjourned and thank you all for com-
ing.
MR. ROSE: Sir, if you don’t mind, I'd like to say one last
thing.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: All right.
MR. ROSE: All right. Well, again gentlemen, | mean, I want
to make perfectly clear because it’s my future at stake here
and I take that very seriously and that’s why I have prepared
this presentation, these documents, and so on. I guess it’s not
kosher for or [| have never heard of anyone who is being ad-
judicated try to specify what the issue is, but I'd like to, for
your consideration say the following:
Now, I do realize that some of the statements that I made,
for example to Colonel Sabar saving I want an interview and
now I’m out of the Air Force and I’m practicing law in Denver
are susceptible on their face of being interpreted as meaning
that I’m a Colorado licensed attorney, but again, | emphasize
that in fact [ was not practicing law in any capacity other than
under the supervision, explicitly taken by the Colorado licensed
attorney in accordance with the ethical parameters outlined to
me by Mr. Feiter and Mr. Fredrickson and later by Mr. Hen-
nesee and regardless of what it appeared, and secondly, even if
those few instances, as far as I can see there are two, in which it
may have appeared to someone that [ was practicing law, it was
not intentional and in fact, this record will show and my cards
show and all these various statements that I have repeatedly for
83a
months done everything [ could at every juncture to inform
people that I'm not practicing law, I’m under other people's
supervision, and that I’m not a Colorado licensed attorney.
The final thing is, one reason it’s been a problem is that peo-
ple, particularly in other places, I’m somewhat in demand.
These people in California send this stuff out to me and then
I've got to tell them, and Peppers comes here and seeks me out,
and so on. So what I’m saying is that it’s not -- I’ve had the
problem and I was aware of the problem. Now, what I'm say-
ing is, gentlemen, even if you should so find that in your op-
nion someone could have construed that I was practicing law in
an unauthorized manner or whatever you do find, it does not
necessarily lead to the conclusion that I’m unfit to practice law
in Colorado, I'm morally and ethically unqualified. That's the
point I’m trying to make here, is that people who are reputable
people, a guy who is clerking for Judge Doyle in he Tenth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals, and so forth, who have known me for
years and have dealt with me intimately say unanimously and
use many statements that it’s their opinion my integrity is
above reproach and I| would not intentionally do anything that
was dishonest. That’s what I’m asserting to you now.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: I think we get the picture.
What you say in brief language is that you were not in fact
holding vourseif out as a Colorado lawyer?
MR. ROSE: That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: You did not intend to,
although you may have by spoken or written word said just
that, but you didn’t intend to say that and you have not in fact
practiced law in Colorado?
MR. ROSE: That’s exactly right, sir.
84a
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Unauthorized. I[ think we've
got the picture. Thank you.
MR. HILL: I also get this impression, though, that even in
your statement or testimony here, that you can hardly prevent
yourself from saying that you are a member of the firm or vou
have to stop and catch yourself every time that the matter
comes up or you would have led someone to believe that you
were a member of the firm on these letterheads you used. I
mean, it’s not what you said will show that, but your voice will
show it. You have to stop and catch yourself every time, even
in your testimony, to say you weren’t doing it. Do I make
myself clear as to what I’m trying to say?
MR. ROSE: Yes, sir. | think | understand what you’re say-
ing. All I can say is that I know in my mind what I’ve tried to
do and intend to do and I know what all these people who have
dealt with me say they recall me having said and done.
Now, the only point is, | have a problem in that -- it’s only a
problem in that I come in contact, interface with people in
which the issue comes up that I have to take the initiative to
make sure that there is no misunderstanding so if somebody
calls me from California or sends me stuff from California as
has happened, or I meet this guy Joe and I’m talking with him,
| have to take the initiative to give him my card and point out
as | did with Jack Olson, and so on.
MR. HILL: All right, but somebody asked vou what they do
in respect to a legal problem when you’re here in Colorado. Do
you ever give them an answer?
MR. ROSE: My only hesitancy, sir, is, I’m trying to think of
any instance I did and I don’t know of any. When I was presi-
dent of the company, as Mr. Blair’s statement attests, then I
was in a lot of contacts where my legal knowledge was useful
and I was sort of in dual roles. I mean, I wasn’t representing
the company as a lawyer, but I was discussing Bar Association
ethical rules and obviously my knowledge came into play, but I
can’t think of any single example in which I have given
anybody legal advice about anything other than Peppers calling
me or Peppers here in this case, but I can’t really say. I can’t be
positive that I did not.
What I can be positive of, sir, is this: Excuse me for rambl-
ing. I can be positive that I never identified myself as being an
attorney for somebody and giving them legal advice. Now,
whether my girl friend asked me about something that was a
legal matter or had some overlap or whether some nextdoor
neighbor, some guy I met at a party or something like that, I
don’t ever recall doing it, but I can’t honestly say I didn’t do it.
I don’t know.
MR. CISNEROS: Did you ever get paid for anything?
MR. ROSE: No. I’ve never been paid for anything. I don’t
give any more legal advice than any layman and I never know-
ingly or intentionally, I can’t think of any example I’ve given
advice to.
I'l] tell you one reason I didn’t do that. One reason I sent
people to Michael Buttes, people who come to me and I'd send
them to Michael Buttes, an attorney. Mike Buttes will tell you
that I have sent a lot of people to him. In fact, it just occurred
to me, this, gentlemen: Unbeknownst to me, my Legal Service
Plan Company was put in the yellow pages of the phone book
in November of '75 and in January of ’76, our company was
supposed to go in operation, so | had a problem now of people
calling our number up, just taking out of the phone book
Group Legal Service of Colorado, Inc., and didn’t advertise
for them or anything like that, but they called up and wanted
legal advice, so I said -- now, I never gave them any advice.
What I did is, I called up two or three attorneys I knew, one of
which is Michael Buttes, and said, ‘‘Look, I’ve got a problem
Qha
now, people are calling because they see Group Legal Services
of Colorado in the phone book. I feel obligated to do
something with them because they have called, so I’m going to
send them to you’’ and I took the initiative, I sent them, and I
was in a position repeatedly until I could have just taken the
work myself or received some kind of pay of given the advice
and I never did it.
I’m just saying, gentlemen, I’ve had constant temptation and
I’ve had constantly the opportunity and I’ve avoided it because
[ didn’t want any kind of problem whatsoever and further-
more, I didn’t need to do it. It’s not worth jeopardizing my
future Or my reputation to do something this petty.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: Anyone have anything else?
MR. SHERMAN: No.
CHAIRMAN HOUTCHENS: All right. Thank you very
much for coming in, gentlemen, and with this we will terminate
the interview.
(Proceedings terminated)
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO
VS
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER
[, Darlene Armbeck, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing
proceedings were reported by me, transcribed under my super-
vision, and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Darlene Armbeck
87a
9
APPENDIX I
COLORADO STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS
220 State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado
In the Matter of the Admission
to the Colorado Bar of
MICHAEL THOMAS ROSE. REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
Successful on February 1976
Bar Examination.
The above matter came on for hearing beginning at 3:30
p.m., June 4, 1976, State Capitol Building, hearing room, City
and County of Denver, Colorado.
Bar Committee Members Present:
ROGER CISNEROS - Discussion Leader
RUSSELL P. KRAMER
JACOB L. SHERMAN
WARREN L. TURNER
Bar Committee Members Not Present:
BARNARD HOUTCHENS
DONALD S. STUBBS
COVER MENDENHALL
Others Present:
MICHAEL T. ROSE, Applicant
GLENN SAUNDERS
MRS. LORRAINE HANDROW
88a
es : , :
| 7 ; a
MRS. CATHARYN ABLES, Secretary to
the Board
Prepared by Daily Copy Specialists, Denver, Colorado
ROGER CISNEROS: I think those that are going to testify
should be sworn in. Mr. Saunders, I think you indicated you
want to say a few words?
MR. SAUNDERS: [ am perfectly willing to assist Mrs. Han-
drow.
ROGER CISNEROS: Mr. Rose, I think that you've received
papers from Mrs. Ables, with the exception of these two.
There’s a letter here from Dick Hennessey and a supplemental
affidavit from Helen Towers, which you probably have not
received.
(Documents were passed to Mr. Rose.)
| think the way that we would like to conduct the meeting is,
as most of you know, we had a lengthy hearing sometime back.
As | understood the charges, Mr. Rose had been accused of
maybe engaging in the practice of law without being admitted.
And he did furnish some testimony and he did furnish quite a
bit of paperwork, affidavits, letters. I’ve gone over those
letters.
I think at this time what I would like to do is just go into any
new things that have not been heard before and not go into too
much as to what we’ve already heard.
Mr. Saunders, you’ve indicated you wanted to be present.
And | don’t know exactly what --
MR. SAUNDERS: No, I have no desire. I simply said we
would make ourselves available. We received a letter from Mr.
Rose and because I had heard of the hearing being conducted, I
89a
thought it proper for me to forward the letter to the Commit-
tee. The letter related to a statement by Mr. Rose that he had
been authorized to employ an attorney and that Mrs. Han-
drow, who is the office manager, not a lawyer, apparently had
authorized him to employ and outside attorney. And those
statements were simply not true and I think the Committee
should know that such statements were not true and it should
be on the record.
ROGER CISNEROS: Then I imagine that Mrs. Handrow
would just verify the --
MR. SAUNDERS: I don’t know what she'll say.
MR. KRAMER: Excuse me. May I ask a question?
ROGER CISNEROS: Go ahead, Mr. Kramer. And if
members of the Committee have any questions, well, just go
ahead and ask them.
MR. KRAMER: Yes. Mr. Saunders, when you say that the
statements Mr. Rose had made with regard to the hiring of an
attorney were not true, you are not speaking from direct
knowledge; you weren’t present when he had any conversation
with the lady, or if he had one?
MR. SAUNDERS: I know nothing about conversations with
Mrs. Handrow. I know [I never authorized any outside counsel,
and I know that Mrs. Handrow has not been authorized to
employ outside counsel and outside counsel, when they are
employed, are always employed by one of the attorneys.
Mrs. Handrow is authorized to operate the office. I’ve
known Mrs. Handrow for 25 or 30 years. I knew her in
business so well that when we moved out of the Water Depart-
ment ten years ago I was able to secure her services, and she has
been our office manager since we moved to our present loca-
90a
tion ten years ago. And she runs the office, but she doesn’t do
any legal work. But as far as the office is concerned, she runs
that.
This letter said she had authorized something and she said --
| asked her about that and she said, ‘‘I never did any such a
thing at all.”’ I just wondered if she had actually exceeded her
authority. I’ve never known her to do that before.
MR. KRAMER: But you're saying, if | understand you cor-
rectly, that it is the policy of your office that the employmeni
of outside attorneys must be approved by an attorney in the
firm?
MR. SAUNDERS: It’s always done by an attorney in the
firm, and usually by concurrence of at least two attorneys.
ROGER CISNEROS: Then, is that a policy communicated
to everybody in the firm?
MR. SAUNDERS: Everyone knows it’s policy, yes.
ROGER CISNEROS: Mr. Bragg, you've mentioned you
might want to say something?
MR. BRAGG: Yes, if I may. And I’m afraid I’m running
against the clock, too, so if I could briefly speak and then
answer any questions the Committee might have and then
leave, if that’s all right.
I didn’t know about this hearing until about 20 minutes ago.
Mike Rose is working for our office and he mentioned that it
was coming up and i simply offered, if it would be of any
assistance, to come over.
9la
[ really have no knowledge of who said what to whom,
when, or any of these things that are apparently before the
Committee. The only thing I know about this, really, I was pre-
sent at one meeting. My affidavit is in the file and I won’t
repeat what is in there. But I did want to come over and tell the
Committee about our firm’s experience with Mr. Rose.
I guess Jim Carrigan and I both met Mike about the end of
last year when he was beginning to look for a law clerking job
in Denver while he was taking the bar and both Jim and I in-
dependently talked to him, literally without each of us knowing
the other was going to do it until we met one day and
discovered we had both talked to him and been impressed by
him
We gave Mike a job as a law clerk at that time back about the
end of last year, and he was working with Jim Carrigan. Jim
was totally satisfied with him. We had no problem whatsoever
with Mike, nor -- and were quite impressed with his ability.
The deal we had with Mike is that we really didn’t have a job
for a fulltime permanent lawyer at that time and had extended
an offer to a law clerk of ours to start in August. It’s hard fora
firms of our size to take in two people. We only have four
lawyers in the firm right at the present time. It’s very hard to do
this.
We basically told Mike he could work his way in the job and
then maybe it could work into something later. Well, about
that time he received the offer from the Saunders firm and
went to work for them.
And I don’t recall for what length of time he worked for the
Saunders firm, but when he was fired by the Saunders firm he
came back and told me about it. And I[ must say he was ex-
tremely candid in telling me all of the circumstances that went
into it and why he was fired by the firm, the problems he had
had, and he was candid about the problems he was having with
this Committee.
And in spite of all that, we really had no reluctance what-
soever in putting Mike back on the payroll. And at this time
since then -- and I don’t recall how long it has been, a month or
six weeks, or whatever it has been, since he was fired by the
Saunders firm -- he has worked directly with me on a day-to-
day basis doing research and in trial preparation.
And when I described him as a law clerk, that’s really not a
broad enough definition, because under my direct, continuing
supervision, with multiple meetings every day, he is doing
things like interviewing witnesses for me and assisting me in
preparing litigation. So that I think I’ve had a pretty broad
look at his abilities.
Because of the problems he has had with this Committee,
and which I’m aware, I’ve been very careful to watch him and
to particularly make sure there was no overstepping of any
kind. And there has been absolutely none. His conduct
throughout the time he has been with our firm has been ex-
emplary. Jim Carrigan is impressed with Mike and I’m im-
pressed with Mike. And we are still to this day, if he ever gets
admitted to the Bar, seriously considering offering him a job in
our firm.
My total impression of Mike is that he probably, once he
learns the practical side of the law, you know, what you can do
here and what you can do there and how you should conduct
yourself in your interpersonal relationships with clients and so
on -- which he does pretty well already, but he still comes to me
and says, ‘‘How should I approach so and so? What is the best
approach for this kind of witness?’’ -- once he learns all of
that, he has the potential to be an absolutely brilliant lawyer.
He has a brilliant mind and he is an extremely hard worker,
93a
.
a eee eT ol Rte | ee eg ee
4
ye
—y
—— ow 72
and one of the most hard working people I’ve ever met.
When you’re around Jim Carrigan, that’s saying something.
That really is nothing, I guess, more than my opinion that he
is a good lawyer and I think he is a pretty good person and I
hope that some day he will be admitted to the Bar.
ROGER CISNEROS: Did you ever -- well, did he ever give
you the impression that he was passing himself out as a lawyer
or anything like that?
MR. BRAGG: No. No, to me he was always completely can-
did and said, ‘‘I’m taking the Bar, and I will be taking the Bar
in February,’’ or whatever it was, ‘‘and if I pass, it will be in
April, and I need a job as a law clerk.’’ That is the way he pos-
ed it to us. ‘‘But I’m not a Colorado licensed lawyer.’’ I think
he is licensed in some other state. But to my knowedge, he has
never passed himself off as a Colorado licensed lawyer to
anyone else that I know of.
ROGER CISNEROS: Any questions?
MR. KRAMER: I have none.
ROGER CISNEROS: Thank you.
MR. BRAGG: Thank you for letting me speak.
ROGER CISNEROS: Mr. Rose, without going over what
we’ve gone over before, is there anything you want to say?
MR. ROSE: Yes, sir, there is. The reason I requested an op-
portunity to come here is to respond to this letter which Justice
Groves forwarded to me that Willard Snyder had sent to the
Committee.
94a
Basically there are three points in the letter that I felt it was
really absolutely essential that I respond to, one of which is
what Mr. Saunders has aiready spoken about.
MR. SAUNDERS: Which letter is this you’re referring to?
MR. ROSE: This is the May 13, 1976, letter from Willard
Snyder to the State Board of Bar Examiners.
Now, the first thing -- [’ll just take it in the order in which
it’s stated in the letter. The first thing that | want to comment
on is that Mr. Snyder says in the letter that [ was given a warn-
ing in March by members of the firm that because I was
engrossed in certain personal items which was interferring with
my work with the firm, that if I did not cease doing that, that |
would be terminated from the firm.
In fact, | was told that I was terminated by Mr. Saunders and
then the decision was reversed and I promised to get my per-
sonal items out of the firm and no longer spoke to anyone
about them.
Mr. Snyder says in this letter, and I quote, ‘‘It turned out
that Mr. Rose did not mend his ways. For example, on our sta-
tionery, without our knowledge, he wrote Colonel Sebara,
Lowery Air Force Base, dated April 19, 1970, as follows: ‘I am
now an attorney practicing law in Denver.’ This appeared to us
to be a misrepresentation of his status as a lawver. Consequent-
ly, on the morning of April 30, 1976, Mr. Rose was fired.”’
Now, gentlemen, I am concerned about that statement and
that’s why I’m here to respond to it.
As I explained to this Committee before, of course, I did
write the letter to Colonel Sebara. It was not at all, as I’ve ex-
plained, an attorney-client relationship. I was asking him for
95a
an interview. I had been friends with him because he was my
former instructor at the Air Force Academy and I was just giv-
ing him a generalized description of what I’m doing these days,
as I would to any other friend who is still in the military, or to
my brother if he cails from Boston say, ‘‘What are you
doing?’’ I just tell him, ‘‘I’m practicing law.’’ And [ don’t in
that context specify that I’m not licensed in Colorado and I am
a law clerk.
But as all of those affidavits and my business cards show,
I’ve tried to ensure that people, when I was in an attorney-
client relationship in any possible context, understood that.
At any rate, what concerns me about this is that this is either
a statement or can be implied that the people in Saunder’s firm
themselves believed that I was making a misrepresentation and
that, consequently, as this says, I was fired.
Now, I was fired on Friday morning, April 30. That after-
noon I met before this Committee. The afternoon before, on
Thursday, an attorney in the firm, Wayne Fowler, came in my
office and said, ‘‘Mike, Mr. Saunders has just been informed
by Colonel Sebara by telephone that you wrote this letter, but
don’t worry about the misrepresentation part of it, Mike,
because
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.