By Matt Masich,, LAW WEEK COLORADO
DENVER — The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel accuses attorney Mark E. Brennan of breaking two Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct while representing the plaintiff in the 2006 Cadorna v. City and County of Denver trial: Rule 3.5(d), which forbids “conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal,” and Rule 8.4(d), which forbids “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
* Brennan’s most effective defense was video deposition of Cadorna jury forewoman Diane Dillingham. In a three-hour deposition, which was viewed in its entirety by the hearing panel, Dillingham testified that Brennan was a passionate advocate in court and was sometimes smart-alecky, but was not intentionally disruptive or abusive.
* Brennan presented notes from OARC’s interviews with seven of the eight Cadorna jurors. The notes are exculpatory. The jurors said Brennan wasn’t abusive or disruptive, and several said they would hire Brennan if they needed a lawyer. OARC had tried to keep the notes out of the record on the grounds they are hearsay. Prosecutors downplayed the juror interviews and Dillingham’s deposition, arguing that the jurors’ opinions as lay-people were not important as the prosecution witnesses, who were all lawyers or court employees.
* Brennan argued that Judge Robert Blackburn conspired with Denver officials to throw out the Cadorna verdict, using trumped up charges of Brennan’s misconduct as a pretext. Brennan also said OARC is prosecuting him as a warning to those lawyers (especially those without friends in high places) who would take on the city in a lawsuit. However, Brennan produced no evidence of these claims.
* Brennan said that some things OARC alleged that he did during the Cadorna trial are irrelevant because they happened outside the presence of the jury. For instance, Brennan admits to calling opposing counsel Jack Wesoky a “little f—ing weasel,” but that it happened in the hallway outside the courtroom. OARC contends it doesn’t matter where the alleged misconduct occurred.
* Brennan claimed the rules he is accused of violating don’t apply to his situation. The “conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal” allegation doesn’t hold up, he said, because prosecutors could not know Brennan’s state of mind at the trial and can’t prove he intended to cause disruption. Brennan also said that the “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice” allegation is “void for vagueness,” and a “catchall” charge that OARC brings when no real offense occurred. Gleason and OARC contend Brennan’s behavior was so reckless as to be intentional.
The three-member hearing panel is expected to make its ruling in the Brennan disciplinary manner within two to four months. The panel is made up of Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero and private-practice attorneys Edwin Kahn and Paul Willumstad.
ABSOLUTELY he made his case! I would and HAVE used Brennan as my attorney. He knows what he is doing and after seeing Ikeler in the video, he violated the 101 Rules of Courtroom! You NEVER walk up from BEHIND to an opposing attorney and push on his arm! You rise up from your table and RAISE YOUR HAND/ARM for the JUDGE to acknowledge you and your comments in the courtroom. Ikeler did that on person to try and unnerve Brennan. And did he go BACK to his seat as the Judge said? NO!
BRENNAN is the best attorney in Denver and his toughness is needed in the courtrooms of today. We have way to many Judges and other “slap on the wrists” nonsense going on by Judges and the Justice system. Look at what justice did with a large corporation in Denver in 1992. A slap on the wrist for the retirees!
Furthermore, LOOK at WHO the PANEL is made up with? The same Judge Lucero and two other attorneys that will probably listen and let the Judge sway their opinions!
Reform is way overdue for the Justice system!