Ghostwriting For Sister Draws Disbarment

The Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge has disbarred an attorney for practicing after suspension

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in June 2023. Even though he knew he could not engage in the practice of law thereafter, he continued to represent his sister by filing briefs and appellate pleadings on her behalf. By assisting his sister, Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Colo. RPC 5.5(a), which prohibits a lawyer from practicing law in Colorado without a valid license to practice law unless otherwise specifically authorized.

After a default had been entered

On April 10, 2025, Respondent filed a nine-page motion to reconsider the order issued the previous day. The Court denied that motion on April 15, 2025, concluding that Respondent failed to meet the standards justifying reconsideration of his motion to set aside default and cautioning Respondent that it would hear no further argument in support of his request to set aside entry of default.

The Court convened the scheduled sanctions hearing on April 24, 2025. Kristofco attended on behalf of the People, and Respondent appeared pro se. At the hearing, the Court first entertained argument on “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Anti-Slapp Statute and P.O.M.E.,” which he filed on April 17, 2025. The Court reserved ruling on that motion but determined that because the motion did not encompass all of the People’s allegations, the sanctions hearing could go forward. The Court thus heard testimony from Victor Morales, Matthew Chudacoff, and Respondent. No exhibits were admitted into evidence.

P.O.M.E.

At the hearing, Respondent argued that his underlying conduct in advancing litigation was protected by the First Amendment under Protect Our Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court (“POME”).  Per POME, he said, the People were required to show that the underlying litigation— in which he claimed that he represented himself and not his sister, Felicia Aniniba—was both objectively baseless and was based on subjectively improper motivation.  He also pointed to Ferraro v. Frias Drywall, LLC,  to argue that the Court has discretion to sua sponte examine the sufficiency of the People’s complaint and set aside default on the grounds that he was not engaged in the underlying litigation in a representative capacity.

Facts

Always Enterprises, d/b/a A-1 Bail Bonds, loaned Respondent $35,000.00 through a promissory note secured by a deed of trust on Respondent’s personal home. On November 19, 2015, A-1 Bail Bonds, by and through its lawyer Larry Henning, filed a foreclosure action against Respondent.

On January 23, 2017, A-1 Bail Bonds filed a “Verified Motion for Order Authorizing Sale,” which was granted March 14, 2018, nunc pro tunc to May 19, 2017. The property was purchased by Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC (“Breckenridge”).

On November 9, 2017, Respondent filed a complaint in Douglas County, Colorado, case number 2017CV31060, against A-1 Bail Bonds and Henning, alleging fraud, negligence, and other claims.

At some point, Respondent executed a $450,000.00 deed of trust on his home for the benefit of his sister, Felicia Aniniba. Although the deed of trust was dated 2016, it was not recorded with the Douglas County Clerk and Recorder until 2021. Ultimately, the Douglas County District Court determined the $450,000.00 deed of trust was fraudulent.

At various times during the foreclosure action (consolidated with case number 2017CV31060 in Douglas County District Court), Respondent stated via filed court pleadings and statements to the court that he was representing his sister, Aniniba, as well as representing himself.

Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for three years beginning June 9, 2023. On June 23, 2023, the court in case 2017CV31060 issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment against Respondent and Aniniba.

Assistance finding

Respondent must have assisted Aniniba with her appeal brief after he was suspended because he was suspended before the final order being appealed was entered; as a result, he could not have known before the effective date of his suspension what evidence would be admitted at the trial, what rulings the court would make throughout the entire trial, or the final judgment the court would enter—all of which appears in Aniniba’s brief. Further, the appellate filings are consistent with Respondent’s writing style and level of legal knowledge, whereas his sister has no legal training and acknowledged during the underlying litigation that she had little or no understanding of the nature of the proceedings.

Sanction

Respondent disregarded an order suspending his license to practice law when he assisted his sister by ghostwriting her posttrial filings and appellate briefs. By doing so, he extended the litigation, forced his opposing parties to expend significant sums in attorney’s fees to defend against those filings, undermined the legal system by violating the duty he owes as a professional to obey court orders, and harmed the reputation of lawyers. Respondent’s misconduct warrants disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)