## Facts

- John R. Olsen, admitted in Colorado in 1979, represented Melissa Mellott through a pro bono program in a federal employment/unemployment-related case against her former employer, MSN Communications, Inc. (MSN).
- After Mellott obtained unemployment benefits, Olsen filed a federal lawsuit seeking additional relief, including back pay, front pay, equal pay, and benefits.
- MSN asserted early that Mellott’s claims lacked factual support and moved to dismiss, producing records (including W‑2s) indicating Mellott had been working and earning substantial income after her termination.
- MSN also presented evidence suggesting Mellott used another woman’s Social Security number to conceal income while collecting unemployment benefits and that she fabricated documents to justify that use.
- Mellott claimed she was unavailable to appear because she had moved to Europe (including Germany). Olsen repeated those statements to the federal magistrate and district judge.
- Based on the claimed unavailability, the federal court rescheduled hearings multiple times.
- Despite the conflicting documentation and MSN’s accusations, Olsen opposed dismissal without conducting an adequate independent investigation of Mellott’s explanations.
- After the case was dismissed, MSN sought attorney’s fees and sanctions; Olsen continued to press arguments defending Mellott’s claims and opposing the fee and sanctions request.
- The federal court found Mellott’s claims were frivolous and false, dismissed the case, and imposed sanctions and fees against Mellott and Olsen.
- The Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed disciplinary charges alleging Olsen violated Colo. RPC 3.1 (frivolous claims) and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
- A Hearing Board found Olsen violated both rules, found his mental state was negligent, and imposed a six-month suspension with a requirement of reinstatement. Olsen appealed the sanction to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Olsen’s conduct in the federal litigation violated Colo. RPC 3.1 and 8.4(d).
2. Whether a six-month suspension with a requirement of reinstatement was a reasonable sanction given the Hearing Board’s finding that Olsen acted negligently rather than knowingly.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Hearing Board’s findings that Olsen violated Colo. RPC 3.1 and 8.4(d).
- The court held the six-month suspension with a requirement of reinstatement was unreasonable in light of the negligent mental state found by the Hearing Board and comparable Colorado discipline outcomes.
- The court reversed the suspension and ordered public censure.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer violates Colo. RPC 3.1 by asserting or continuing claims and positions that lack a nonfrivolous factual basis, particularly after receiving substantial information calling the factual foundation into question.
- A lawyer may violate Colo. RPC 8.4(d) through litigation conduct that needlessly burdens courts and parties—such as prolonging proceedings and causing avoidable delay—when the conduct results from negligent failure to verify key factual assertions.
- Sanctions in attorney discipline are determined using the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, considering the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the actual or potential injury, and aggravating and mitigating factors.
- When a tribunal finds a lawyer acted negligently (as opposed to knowingly or intentionally), discipline generally trends toward a lesser sanction than suspension, unless aggravating factors justify a harsher outcome.
- A reviewing court may modify a Hearing Board’s sanction when it is inconsistent with the Board’s mental-state finding and with proportionality to sanctions imposed in similar Colorado cases.

## Conclusion

In In re Olsen, the Colorado Supreme Court held that attorney John R. Olsen violated Colo. RPC 3.1 and 8.4(d) by negligently pursuing and defending litigation positions tied to his client’s false factual claims—without sufficient investigation—thereby prolonging proceedings and burdening the federal court and opposing party; however, because the Hearing Board found negligence rather than knowing misconduct, the court ruled that a six-month suspension with reinstatement was excessive and substituted public censure.


In re Olsen, 326 P.3d 1004 (2014)