## Facts

- Victor Reichman, a Colorado district attorney and licensed attorney, helped organize a local drug-enforcement task force that used an undercover officer operating under a fictitious identity.
- The undercover officer feared his identity had been compromised and called an emergency meeting with task-force participants.
- To restore the undercover officer’s credibility, the task force decided to stage the officer’s arrest and a fictitious criminal case.
- A false criminal complaint and related papers were prepared and filed, representing that the undercover officer had committed drug and firearm offenses, even though no crime had been committed and no real prosecution was intended.
- The court was not told the proceeding was staged; false statements were made to the tribunal as part of the sham case.
- Disciplinary authorities charged Reichman with professional misconduct, and a hearing board found violations by clear and convincing evidence and recommended public censure; a hearing panel approved those findings and the recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether a prosecutor violates DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6) by participating in and authorizing a sham criminal prosecution that includes filing false documents and misrepresenting facts to a court to protect an undercover operation.
2. What professional discipline is appropriate for such misconduct.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the hearing board’s findings and concluded Reichman violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6).
- The court ordered that Reichman be publicly censured and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Knowingly filing false criminal charges or documents and making misrepresentations to a tribunal constitutes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).
- Using judicial process to conduct a sham prosecution is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under DR 1-102(A)(5) and reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice under DR 1-102(A)(6).
- Investigative deception may be permissible in certain contexts, but fabricating an actual court proceeding and deceiving the tribunal is categorically improper, even when aimed at legitimate law-enforcement objectives.
- In selecting sanctions, the court may weigh seriousness of the misconduct against mitigating circumstances; here, public censure was deemed sufficient given the record and recommendation below.

## Conclusion

A prosecutor who authorizes a staged criminal case and deceives the court through false filings commits professional misconduct warranting discipline; public censure and costs were imposed for misuse of the judicial process.


People v. Reichman, 819 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991)