Return Of The Dogs
The three year consent suspension has been approved by the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge
In July 2023, a client consulted with Piccone after paying a $250.00 consultation fee. The client retained Piccone, who drafted and e-filed a verified complaint. The client then paid Piccone a $2,500.00 retainer. Several days thereafter, the court’s e-filing system emailed Piccone a notice stating that the documents she filed were rejected. Piccone did not realize this notice had been sent to her. In the last two weeks of July 2023, the client called Piccone several times, leaving messages. When Piccone did not respond, the client filed a pro se complaint. Although Piccone did not follow through with the representation and had not earned the retainer, Piccone knowingly spent the retainer for her personal use. Piccone did not respond to disciplinary authorities’ communications. Ultimately, in March 2024, Piccone refunded the full retainer.
In another matter, a prospective client booked a virtual consultation with Piccone and, using his credit card, paid the consultation fee. Piccone did not appear for the scheduled consultation and did not respond to the individual’s communication attempts. The individual requested a refund; after disputing the charge with his credit card company, he received a reversal of payment.
In a final case, a couple paid Piccone a $3,000.00 retainer to defend them against a civil lawsuit. After some delay, Piccone filed an answer and counterclaim for them in April 2023. The clients did not hear from Piccone thereafter, and she did not respond to opposing counsel or court filings. Piccone failed to account for how or when she earned the clients’ funds. In October 2023, the court entered default against the clients. Later, the clients saw that the case was set for a status hearing; after they unsuccessfully attempted to contact Piccone, they retained new counsel. Meanwhile, the court entered judgment and an order for possession, and sheriffs took possession from the clients of three dogs subject to the order. The clients’ new counsel successfully moved to set aside the default judgment based in part on several meritorious defenses Piccone pleaded in the answer. After additional litigation, the court ordered return of the dogs to the clients. A trial is set for January 2025. Piccone refunded the retainer in 2024.
In two separate client cases, Juliet Rene Piccone (“Respondent”) signed engagement agreements containing a provision permitting her to reverse previously granted courtesy discounts if her representation was terminated before the case’s completion. This provision offended Colo. RPC 1.5(g), which prohibits agreements that purport to restrict clients’ rights to terminate representation. In the same cases, Respondent made eight posts on social media that revealed client information; some of those posts also disclosed confidential attorney-client communications and disparaged her clients. She thereby violated Colo. RPC 1.6(a). And in connection with one of those cases, Respondent posted on social media embarrassing information that had no substantial purpose other to humiliate opposing counsel, which contravened Colo. RPC 4.4(a). Respondent’s misconduct warrants a suspension of six months, all stayed upon the successful completion of conditions during a two-year probationary period.
The prior case involved dogs named Bandit and Diamond.
Bandit
S.T. and O.J., an Aurora couple, owned a pit bull named Bandit. On January 4, 2017, Bandit ran out the front door of the family’s house and bit a FedEx delivery man in the face. The City of Aurora (“the City”) impounded Bandit and charged S.T. with four city ordinance violations: (1) dog running at large; (2) keeping an aggressive or dangerous animal; (3) failure to obtain a rabies inoculation; and (4) unlawful keeping of a restricted breed (pit bull). The City lodged these charges with the Aurora Municipal Court under case number K64573.
Diamond
On April 29, 2017, B.D. and his adult foster son, M.H., retained Respondent per a written engagement agreement signed that day. The representation related to an incident that occurred on April 7, when the family’s pit bull, Diamond, escaped from the family home and was picked up and impounded by the City. Respondent, in fact, had been aware of Diamond’s impoundment well before she was retained; on April 18, Respondent posted on her firm’s Facebook page that she had given B.D. “a 30 minute consult that he could not pay for to get him started,” and she shared B.D.’s GoFundMe link, accompanied by her own call for donations to cover the cost of the consult. Respondent later reposted a post by B.D. in which he announced that he had retained her.
(Mike Frisch)