In re Sather
Colorado Supreme Court
3 P.3d 403 (2000)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Larry D. Sather (defendant) was an attorney who represented Franklin Perez in a civil case against the Colorado State Patrol. Sather entered into a fee arrangement contract with Perez through which Perez paid Sather an advance fee of $20,000. The agreement stated that the fee was nonrefundable regardless of how many hours Sather eventually spent on the matter. Sather failed to keep the $20,000 advance funds separate from his personal funds, and spent the money before he had earned the fees. Sather filed suit on Perez’s behalf, but the representation was terminated when Sather was suspended from the practice of law for 30 days as a result of another matter. Sather acknowledged that he had not earned approximately $13,000 of the advance fees and agreed to refund that amount, but took over five months to pay the money back to Perez. Perez filed a complaint about the fees Sather claimed he had earned and agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Perez the amount it had cost Perez to bring the arbitration action but did not award any recovery of the fees Sather had charged for the work he claimed to have performed. A hearing board found that Sather had violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended that he be suspended from practicing law for one year and one day. The matter came before the Colorado Supreme Court as an original proceeding.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bender, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 829,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.