## Facts

- In March 2020, Christopher Simpson retained attorney Christopher Fry and Fry’s firm, Modern Family Law, to represent Simpson in a child-support matter after Simpson’s ex-wife moved to modify child support.
- Under the fee agreement, Simpson paid an initial retainer; Simpson’s credit card would be charged twice per month for legal services; and any unused retainer balance would be refunded.
- Fry filed Simpson’s response to the child-support motion about three weeks late.
- Fry did not provide Simpson’s required financial information to opposing counsel by required deadlines, even though Fry billed Simpson for work related to those disclosures.
- The representation was marked by lapses in diligence, preparation, and communication, and Simpson suffered adverse consequences in the case, including being sanctioned after a motion filed by his ex-wife.
- Simpson terminated Fry’s representation.
- After termination, Modern Family Law continued charging Simpson’s credit card, including charges that replenished the original retainer.
- Fry did not timely provide Simpson’s new lawyer with information needed to take over the case.
- Fry filed a notice of attorney’s lien and related documents asserting Simpson had failed to pay legal fees.
- In fact, Simpson did not owe fees at the time and was entitled to a refund of the remaining retainer balance.
- When the billing and lien issues were raised, Fry attributed the problems to a new billing system used by the firm.
- Rather than withdrawing the lien-related filings, Fry filed a notice of satisfaction of judgment, release, and waiver that misleadingly suggested Simpson had paid a debt to Fry.
- The state disciplinary authority opened an investigation, and Fry failed to cooperate.
- The disciplinary matter proceeded to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Did Fry commit professional misconduct through untimely and inadequate work in the child-support matter, improper billing and retainer handling after termination, false or misleading lien-related filings, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities?
2. What sanction was appropriate based on the nature of the misconduct and the harm caused?

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court determined that Fry’s conduct constituted professional misconduct.
- The court found that Fry neglected the client’s matter and failed to communicate and prepare adequately, contributing to adverse outcomes for the client, including a sanctions order.
- The court treated the continued post-termination credit-card charges and the failure to return money due to the client as improper fee/retainer conduct.
- The court concluded Fry acted improperly in filing lien-related papers asserting nonpayment when the client did not owe fees and in filing documents implying a debt had been paid rather than correcting the inaccurate filings.
- The court considered Fry’s complete failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation as additional misconduct and an aggravating consideration.
- The court suspended Fry from the practice of law for 18 months.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney-discipline matters, when a lawyer does not participate and default enters, the charged factual allegations and rule violations may be treated as established, leaving sanction as the main remaining question.
- A lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and keep a client reasonably informed; sustained inattention and poor communication that cause client harm warrant significant discipline.
- A lawyer may not charge for work not performed, may not continue charging a client after the representation ends without a valid basis, and must return unearned funds owed to the client.
- On termination of representation, a lawyer must take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests, including facilitating transfer of the file and information to successor counsel.
- Lawyers must not make false or misleading statements in court filings; lien filings and “release” documents must accurately reflect the client’s payment status and the existence (or nonexistence) of any debt.
- Failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities is itself misconduct and is treated as a serious aggravating factor in determining sanction.
- Sanctions consider the duties violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the actual or potential injury, and aggravating or mitigating factors, with the aim of protecting the public and the legal system.

## Conclusion

In *People v. Fry*, the Colorado Supreme Court suspended attorney Christopher Fry for 18 months after concluding that he neglected a client’s child-support matter, billed improperly and failed to return money owed after termination, filed lien-related documents that inaccurately asserted nonpayment and later filed misleading “satisfaction” papers, and then refused to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, causing harm to the client and reflecting serious professional misconduct.


People v. Fry, 501 P.3d 846 (2021)