Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

DA used office to intimidate

Arapahoe County's Chambers cleared by panel on other counts

Ivan Moreno, Rocky Mountain News

Published December 27, 2006 at midnight

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers used the power of her office to intimidate a lawyer trying to collect a debt from an Englewood councilwoman Chambers knew, a three-judge panel has found.

Chambers will face "public censure," but no other discipline, the Attorney Regulation Counsel said Tuesday in releasing the findings of its investigation of a complaint filed in June by lawyer Jonathan R. Steiner.

The Attorney Regulation Counsel, which investigates lawyer misconduct, cleared Chambers on three of the four counts she faced, but said in its decision that she engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

Chambers said she was "thrilled that they found that there was no breach of integrity," but added she is considering whether to appeal the judges' decision to censure her, which will be on her record as long as she is a practicing attorney.

"This is an opinion that impacts district attorneys all over the state," said Chambers, adding that she feels her job as district attorney is to advocate on behalf of constituents who feel they have been wronged.

"I don't think it's my job to stand back and watch," Chambers said. "Again, all I was doing was asking questions."

Steiner was working for Central Credit Corp. last year when he was trying to collect money from two bad checks Laurrett Barrentine was accused of writing to Wal-Mart totalling $320.32. Steiner claimed Chambers threatened him with a grand jury investigation when she left him a voice mail on Jan. 23.

In the voice mail, Chambers said her office was "getting a lot of complaints from victims of identity theft that you are pressuring them, shall I say, to pay on checks that they did not write."

Chambers also said in the voice mail that she was "looking at investigating this with the grand jury, and I'd like to hear your input first if you'd like to make it."

When the judges asked Chambers during her October disciplinary hearing for other examples of complaints from identity theft victims about collection agencies her office had received, she couldn't come up with any besides Central Credit and Barrentine. However, the judges agreed with her that she was not targeting Steiner specifically or threatening him.

Chambers was also cleared of the allegation that she lied to Steiner when she said she had received several complaints against him.

Chambers and Barrentine say they know each other from Republican Party political functions but are not friends. It was at one of those functions in November 2005 that Barrentine told Chambers that Steiner was hassling her to pay on checks she never wrote.

Chambers referred Barrentine to the DA's husband, Nathan, also an attorney.

The collection agency dropped a lawsuit against Barrentine on Jan. 31, a week after Chambers called Steiner and a day before the matter was scheduled for trial.

Chambers maintained Steiner had a weak case against Barrentine and should never have sued her.

Disciplinary panel's conclusions on complaints against Carol Chambers

• COUNT 1

On whether Chambers knowingly made false or misleading statements in her Jan. 23 voice mail to Jonathan R. Steiner:

Chambers knew of abusive collection agency practices, and when she said "numerous complaints" and "you" she may not have been speaking about Steiner specifically.

COUNT 2

On whether Chambers threatened to present criminal charges against Steiner to obtain an advantage in a civil matter:

Chambers' statement that she was "looking into investigating" several complaints did not mean she would present criminal charges against Steiner.

• COUNT 3

On whether Chambers engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in her voice mail to Steiner:

Chambers' "statement might have been poorly articulated, extemporaneous and made in haste but falls short of clear and convincing evidence of intent to deceive."

• COUNT 4

On whether Chambers engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

By intervening in Laurett Barrentine's lawsuit, Chambers "effectively placed her finger on the scales of justice on behalf of one party to a civil case."Source: Decision Letter By The Colorado Supreme Court.

or 303-954-2895