Fee Issues Draw Censure
From the web page of the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge
People v. Ginger Vidrine. 25PDJ49. August 6, 2025.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ amended stipulation to discipline and publicly censured Ginger Vidrine (attorney registration number 44111), with conditions. Vidrine’s public censure took effect on August 6, 2025.
In 2023, Vidrine agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter involving charges for numerous felony sex offenses. Vidrine and the client entered a fee agreement under which the client paid Vidrine a flat fee of $12,000.00. The agreement set forth benchmarks under which Vidrine would earn one-third of the fee upon entering her appearance in the case, one-third of the fee upon receipt and review of discovery, and one-third upon beginning plea negotiations with the prosecutor. From August 2023 to January 2024, Vidrine worked approximately ninety hours on the case, achieving each of the benchmarks.
In early January 2024, Vidrine and the client entered a new fee agreement for a “trial fee” of $125,000.00. Under that agreement, Vidrine earned half the fee at the trial setting, which was approximately one week later, and half the fee when motions were set. No additional fee would be charged if the case proceeded to a motions hearing or to trial, but neither would any portion of the fee be refunded if the case did not so proceed. In May 2024, Vidrine’s client entered a guilty plea in the case. Vidrine worked on the matter through sentencing, logging approximately 265 hours on the case from January through July 2024. After the case completed, Vidrine’s firm returned $40,000.00 to the client.
In a second matter, a client hired Vidrine in May 2024 to represent the client in a criminal matter involving three felony sex charges. Under Vidrine’s fee agreement, the client paid a flat fee of $30,000.00 and Vidrine would earn one-third of the fee upon entering her appearance, one-third of the fee upon receipt and review of discovery, and one-third upon beginning plea negotiations. The agreement also provided that a new agreement for a minimum $25,000.00 fee would be required if the matter proceeded to trial on one of the felony sex charges. From May 7 to May 17, 2024, Vidrine worked approximately thirty-five hours on the case, reviewing discovery and materials from her client’s former counsel. The client terminated Vidrine on May 17, 2024. Vidrine’s firm later returned $30,000.00 to the client.
Through this misconduct, Vidrine violated Colo. RPC 1.5(a) (a lawyer must not charge an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses); Colo. RPC 1.5(g) (a lawyer must not charge nonrefundable fees or retainers); and Colo. RPC 1.5(h) (a lawyer must include specific benchmarks for earning a portion of a flat fee, if any portion is to be earned before conclusion of the representation).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 242.41(a).
(Mike Frisch)