In a construction-defect matter filed by a homeowners’ association (HOA) against several developers, an attorney for the HOA previously represented one of the developers. The developers moved to disqualify that attorney under Rules 1.9 and 1.10 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial court denied the motion, without what the Colorado Supreme Court described as “meaningfully analyzing for purposes” of Rule 1.9 whether this case was “substantially related” to the prior matters in which the attorney represented the developer. Instead, the Court found the trial court relied on issue preclusion, and found that in this situation, the attorney was not disqualified to represent the developer. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred by not analyzing the facts of this case under Rule 1.9, and therefore vacated the denial of the developers’ motion, and remanded for further proceedings. Read the article…………….
The measure providing for the redevelopment of condominiums in the country has been unanimously approved…
After the Trustees of his condominium refused his request for an Architectural Variance to install…
David Langston is the President of Beaver Creek Homeowners Association and one of his many…
A March ruling by Florida’s First District Court of Appeal and the 2016 incident behind…
Officials said that Slothower devised a scheme to misappropriate more than $1 million from clients…
Dear Tony: Thank you for your column last week regarding levy refunds. Our strata council…