Legal Opinion

In Re Wimmershoff

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 12, 2000No. 99SA27PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

This is an attorney regulation case. A hearing board found that the attorney-respondent, Nicholas A. Wimmershoff, charged his client an unreasonable fee, deposited part of this unreasonable fee into his operating account (although it had not been fully earned), failed to adequately explain the basis of his fee to the client, and violated the rules governing contingent fee agreements. A hearing panel of our former grievance committee 1 approved the board's findings and its recommendation that Wimmershoff be publicly censured and be required to disgorge the unreasonable part of the fee to his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. VaralloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  2. In re SatherSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  3. People v. SatherSupreme Court of Colorado · 1997
  4. People v. CaseySupreme Court of Colorado · 1997

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Crowe v. TullSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
  2. In Re GreenSupreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  3. People v. FeatherSupreme Court of Colorado · 2007
  4. People v. BarringerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
  5. Davis v. StrusDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2020

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API