An ethics complaint against District Attorney Todd Risberg has been resolved through an agreement with the Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.
According to the agreement, Risberg must pay $333 and complete a one-day ethic’s class – an anticlimactic outcome to a case that dragged on for 2½ years and cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
The Attorney Regulation Counsel, which oversees complaints alleging misconduct on the part of lawyers and judges, filed a formal complaint earlier this year with the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, accusing Risberg of three violations: knowingly making false statements, failing to notify defense attorneys of deals offered to co-defendants and meeting with a defendant outside the presence of her attorney.
The claims stem from Risberg’s handling of a 2012 murder case involving six defendants who were charged with various crimes related to the death of Joey Benavidez of Ignacio.
All three claims were dismissed in accordance with a private admonition, which Risberg made available this week to The Durango Herald.
“It’s really meaningless,” he said.
Possible penalties related to professional misconduct include disbarment, suspension, public censure and private admonition, which is an unpublished reproach by the Colorado Supreme Court Committee that becomes part of an attorney’s record.
Risberg said he’s happy to have the matter resolved. He said he made an honest mistake in speaking with a criminal defendant without her lawyer present. He did so based on faulty information from another attorney who said she was no longer represented, he said. In hindsight, he should have done more to ensure that was true, he said.
According to the stipulated agreement, Risberg’s mental state was “negligent.” He has no prior disciplinary record, his motive was not dishonest or selfish and he expressed remorse for the lapse, according to the agreement.
His actions required a trial court to spend time and resources addressing the issue, but otherwise no harm resulted from the misstep.
As of May, Risberg’s legal defense had cost $40,381, which is being paid out of the budget of the 6th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, which includes Archuleta, San Juan and La Plata counties. He did not have a total as of this week.
The District Attorney’s Office has about a $2 million budget, funded by the three counties.
La Plata County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt said commissioners were aware of the complaint against Risberg and that funds from the district attorney’s budget were used to defend him. The county’s insurance company provided $7,500 – its limit in these types of cases, she said.
Otherwise, commissioners have not reviewed expenditures in the case, she said.
“Commissioners will be reviewing the appropriateness of those expenditures given the outcome,” Lachelt said.
Risberg said the case could have gone to trial, “which would have been more gratifying,” but it also would have cost much more, and “I don’t think that was a good value for the taxpayers.”
“It’s unfortunate that people are able to cost the county a lot of money by making false allegations,” he said.
The complaint was initiated by Durango defense lawyer Tom Williamson. His grievance was reviewed and transferred to a trial division for an investigation. A nine-member committee found “probable cause” to file three claims against Risberg.
Risberg’s lawyer, Gordon L. Vaughan, filed a motion to dismiss one of the claims – failing to advise a defendant of deals offered to co-defendants – and the presiding judge issued a ruling favorable to Risberg that made the people’s position more difficult to prove, said James Coyle, attorney regulation counsel.
After that, the office decided to enter mediation versus proceeding to trial, he said.
Coyle estimated 75 percent of Attorney Regulation Counsel cases result in formal claims that are resolved through mediation and stipulated agreements.
Risberg said Williamson filed the complaint in retaliation because Risberg sought a criminal indictment against a Durango defense lawyer who defended one of the suspects in the 2012 murder case. The indictment, which accused the attorney of tampering with evidence, was chilling to some in the criminal defense community. A special prosecutor reviewed the indictment and declined to prosecute, saying there was insufficient proof.
Risberg, who will conclude his term as district attorney in January, blasted Williamson.
“He’s a very angry person,” Risberg said. “I just feel pity for him. ... He sits in the shadows and throws bombs.”
Williamson expressed disappointment with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, saying it appears the office struck an agreement to avoid a “lengthy and arduous” trial against someone who was defending himself “with a blank check out of his office funds.”
“They either dropped or did not pursue several very serious claims to reach a settlement,” he wrote in an email to the Herald. “Formal complaints, such as was obtained here, are filed when the alleged violations are serious enough to warrant a public censure, suspension, or disbarment.
Said Coyle: “We just have to make our decision based on the evidence we have.”
shane@durangoherald.com
Todd Risberg stipulated agreem (PDF)
Risberg's answer to complaint (PDF)
