F Bombs And “Shut Up Jan”
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed consideration of ABA sanction standards and the imposition of a public censure for an attorney’s conduct in his dealings with school staff
This matter asks us to consider the relationship between the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (Am. Bar Ass’n, 2d ed. 2019) (“ABA Standards”), when the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (“PDJ”) imposes sanctions on an attorney for violating our rules of professional conduct.
In May 2022, during a meeting with the staff of the Mesa County Valley School District 51 (the “school district”), attorney Igor Raykin directed several inappropriate expletive-laden outbursts at the staff in the presence of his minor client and his client’s parents. Raykin’s conduct at the meeting was reported to the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (“OARC”). OARC investigated and filed a complaint with the PDJ, (1) alleging that Raykin had violated Colo. RPC 4.4(a), which addresses an attorney’s respect for the rights of third persons, and (2) seeking sanctions for the violation.
A Hearing Board concluded that Raykin’s conduct at the meeting violated Colo. RPC 4.4(a) because the conduct had no substantial purpose other than to delay, embarrass, or burden the school district’s staff. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Hearing Board determined that the appropriate sanctions were a public censure and an independent medical examination (“IME”).
The conduct at issue took place during a meeting to discuss an individualized education plan
The school district’s representatives in attendance included Tammy Eret Lynch, the school district’s outside counsel; Walter Fox, a special education instructor; and Jan Blair, a special education consultant who led the meeting.
Over the course of the approximately eighty-minute call, Raykin made several profane and disparaging comments directed toward the school district’s staff that started about twenty-three minutes into the meeting. During an argument with Blair, Raykin said, “Shut up, Jan.” A few seconds later, he pointed his finger at the screen and again said, “Shut up, Jan.” A minute later, Raykin told Blair again to shut up.
Soon after, apparently having received an incorrect document by email, Raykin said the following to Blair and Lynch: “You people can’t even send the right f**king document.” Lynch told Raykin that he should not be cursing in the meeting, to which he replied, “I sure as f*** am.” Blair muted Raykin the next time he began cursing. Raykin unmuted himself and said, “Every time I unmute myself, I’m going to say f*** again. That’s how I am going to start every sentence.”
On November 23, 2022, Raykin wrote a supplemental response to OARC. In it, he mentioned again that he has been diagnosed with various disorders, including intermittent explosive disorder. He said he understood how his earlier response letter could be “hurtful,” and that it was “unproductive,” “dumb,” and “selfish.”
On February 29, 2024, Raykin wrote a letter of apology to Blair, Lynch, Fox, and the other school district employees who attended the May 18, 2022 meeting. In it, he acknowledged victimizing people in the room. He admitted to being “a bully, an immature person who couldn’t control himself, a hypocrite, a person who was setting a terrible example for the kid he was representing.” He also wrote, “I’m not the kind of person who changes through positive rewards. I’m much more likely to change when the consequences of not doing so are simply too heavy.” He described working on his anger, including through cognitive behavioral therapy, to help with self-control. He said he took medication for his disorder, including on the day of the IEP meeting, but that “didn’t stop [him].” He commented that working on his anger would be an “ongoing process” and one “without end.”
Here, after thoroughly considering the mitigating factors and the aggravating factor in its opinion imposing sanctions, the Hearing Board explained that it was “more than impressed with the level and extent of [Raykin’s] genuine contrition.” And rather than imposing the presumptive sanction of a suspension, the Board found public censure more appropriate, in part because “the mitigating evidence here overwhelms the lone factor in aggravation.”