People v. Rishel
Colorado Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
50 P.3d 938 (2002)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Attorney John B. Rishel, III (defendant) was a member of the Colorado bar. Rishel participated in a ticket-buying pool with other fans of the Colorado Rockies (Rockies). In January 2000, Rishel asked Joanne Baum-McCarthy and her husband (the McCarthys), who were members of the pool, to pay him $1,176 by cashier’s check for their tickets for the 2000 season. In prior years, the McCarthys had paid Rishel by personal check. Rishel cashed the McCarthys’ check but did not provide them with their tickets, and he ignored their inquiries after the Rockies advised them that Rishel never bought the tickets. Thomas M. Dunn, another pool member, had a similar experience with Rishel. In late 1998 and early 1999, Dunn paid Rishel $1,105.76 for a share of Rockies’ tickets, but Dunn never received the tickets. Instead, Rishel gave Dunn’s tickets to someone else and did not respond to Dunn’s inquiries. In June 2000, Rishel filed for personal bankruptcy. Rishel’s filing revealed that he had spent the money he received from the McCarthys and Dunn (victims). The State of Colorado (plaintiff) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Richel for professional misconduct for, among other things, (1) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by misappropriation or (2) committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer via theft. Rishel argued that he did not commit misappropriation or theft because he did not intend to deprive the victims of their money permanently.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keithley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.