District Attorney Carol Chambers violated rules of professional conduct by using her office to help an acquaintance, a three- member panel ruled Tuesday.
Her penalty is public censure, and she was ordered to pay court costs. Censure is defined as “a reproach published with other grievance decisions and made available to the public.”
Chambers was cleared of three other counts, including intimidating a collections lawyer.
She said Tuesday that she hasn’t decided whether to appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. At a news conference, Chambers was as defiant as she has been throughout the inquiry.
“I was censured here for primarily asking questions,” said Chambers, the district attorney for Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties. “I’m thrilled they found there was no breach of integrity, but I’m concerned about their finding … that somehow I interfered with the administration of justice.”
Chambers underwent a three- day disciplinary hearing in October on allegations she used her office to threaten a collection-agency lawyer who was seeking a judgment from one of Chambers’ acquaintances, Englewood City Councilwoman Laurett Barrentine. Chambers also was accused of making misleading statements and being dishonest. She was cleared of those but was found in violation of engaging in conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Jonathan Steiner, the collection agency lawyer, said Tuesday that he felt he was threatened by Chambers when she left a voice-mail message for him.
“I still believe exactly how I testified – that I thought it was a threatening message,” Steiner said. “If that’s what they felt the facts supported, I’ll just go with their decision.”
Chambers was accused of threatening to convene a grand jury to investigate Steiner, a lawyer for Central Credit Corp., about tactics used in dealing with Barrentine, who was a victim of identify theft. Authorities found that someone had written bad checks to Wal-Mart on a closed account of Barrentine’s. Steiner dropped the case against Barrentine.
In a message left with Steiner on Jan. 23., Chambers said she had received “a lot of complaints from the victims of identity theft that you are pressuring them, shall I say, to pay on checks that they did not write.”
However, Chambers testified that she had received only one complaint about Steiner, from Barrentine. Chambers knew Barrentine through functions for the Republican Party.
The disciplinary panel noted several mitigating factors in its decision, including that Chambers has practiced law for 20 years without a prior disciplinary record and that there was no evidence she acted with a dishonest or selfish motive.
They found she did use her office to try to help Barrentine.
“In her zealous effort to accomplish her dual objectives, she acted rashly without analyzing how to avoid using her public authority for a private matter,” the panel said. “…She effectively placed her finger on the scales of justice.”
Charles Mortimer, assistant regulatory counsel for the state Office of Attorney Regulation, recommended that Chambers at least receive public censure if she was found to have violated the conduct rules. He could not be reached for comment.
Barrentine said she was pleased that nothing in the decision said Chambers had any influence in the dismissal of the case.
Staff researcher Barry Osborne contributed to this report.
