A collection-agency lawyer testified Monday that he was worried after District Attorney Carol Chambers tried to persuade him to drop a case against one of her acquaintances with what he perceived was a threat of a grand jury.
“I was very concerned about the threat that there might be a grand jury investigation for something I didn’t do,” Jonathan Steiner said. “I was scared, and I still feel threatened to this day.”
During her disciplinary hearing Monday, Chambers, the district attorney for Arapahoe, Elbert, Lincoln and Douglas counties, again reiterated that she was only talking about a possible grand jury against the collection-agency industry in general and not Steiner specifically.
“I wanted to be straight with the guy,” Chambers said on the stand. “I was talking off the top of my head.”
Chambers was appearing before a disciplinary judge on allegations that she knowingly made a false or misleading statement to a third party, threatened a criminal charge to gain advantage in a civil action, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty and used her office to intimidate.
She faces discipline ranging from a reprimand to disbarment if a judge refers the case to the Colorado Supreme Court.
Chambers testified that she had not threatened Steiner, a lawyer for the Central Credit Corp., about the company’s tactics in dealing with Englewood City Councilwoman Laurett Barrentine. Someone had written two bad checks on Barrentine’s closed account. She later proved to be a victim of identity theft, and the collection agency dropped its civil case and paid her court costs.
In a phone message left with Steiner on Jan. 23, Chambers, who identified herself as the district attorney, said she had received numerous complaints from victims of identity theft that Steiner was pressuring them to pay on bad checks they never wrote. She later admitted that she had only received one complaint about Steiner – the one from Barrentine.
Charles Mortimer, assistant regulatory counsel for the the Office of Attorney Regulation, grilled Chambers for about an hour with questions about the intent of her phone message. Twice the message referred to “you,” as in Steiner, Mortimer said, which meant Chambers was specifically targeting Steiner.
“Either it was a very bad error of judgment or a serious breach of ethics by the district attorney,” Mortimer said.
“She did not lie”
Chambers’ defense attorney said it was a case of a poorly composed voice mail.
“She did not lie. She did not threaten Mr. Steiner with a criminal case,” defense attorney Mike McConnell said. “She is guilty of being concerned about the victims of identity theft.”
Chambers on Monday said her husband, attorney Nathan Chambers, didn’t think it was a good idea when she asked him to give Barrentine some pro-bono guidance when the three were at a political event in November 2005.
“He was concerned about the appearance,” Carol Chambers said.
Steiner said Barrentine did not seem to want to resolve the matter. He said he repeatedly asked Barrentine to provide him with a signature, police report or other evidence that she was a victim of identity theft.
“She was still unable to work with us and stated that she had friends in high places,” Steiner said. She said, “‘I want to get you people. I have friends in high places.”‘
Chambers said she she had contributed $100 to fellow Republican Barrentine’s campaign, but they were only acquaintances. The city councilwoman actually supported Chambers’ opponent in the Republican primary.
The three-day hearing continues today.
Staff writer Carlos Illescas can be reached at 303-954-1175 or cillescas@denverpost.com.
