SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO

101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 800 FILED IN THE

Denver, Colorado 80202 SUPREME COURT

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MAY 232011

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW, OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
1 OUPLO58 Christopher T. Ryan, Clerk

Petitioner:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF A COURT USE ONLY A
COLORADO Case Number:

11SA154
Respondent:
DOUGLAS BRUCE

Kim E. Ikeler, #15590

Assistant Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Petitioner
1560 Broadway, Suite 1800
Denver, CO 80202
Phone Number: (303) 866-6400
Fax Number: (303) 893-5302
Email: k.ikelexJcsc state. co .US
.

PETITION FOR INJUNCTION

Petitioner, through the undersigned Assistant Regulation

Counsel, and upon authorization pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234(a),l

respectfully requests that the Colorado Supreme Court issue an

order pursuant to C.R.C.P. 234 directing the Respondent to show

The Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) Committee authorized the filing of

this Petition on May 13, 2011.
 cause why he should not be enjoined from the unauthorized

practice of law. As grounds therefor, counsel states as follows:

Jurisdiction

1. The Respondent, Douglas Bruce, is not licensed to practice

law in the state of Colorado.

2. Respondent Bruce is an inactive California attorney.

3. Respondent’s last known address is P.O. Box 26018,

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80936.

4. Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, as

described below.

Factual Allegations

5. Respondent Bruce filed an action against the City of

Colorado Springs, seeking injunctive or declaratory relief regarding

approval of language for a ballot initiative. Douglas Bruce v. City of

Colorado Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No.

10CV260. The case was assigned to Judge David Gilbert, who

denied the requested relief on June 18, 2010.

6. On July 29, 2010, Respondent Bruce filed an almost

identical complaint, again in El Paso County District Court. The

2
 case was assigned to Judge Theresa Cisneros. She entered an

order in open court dismissing the case. Judge Cisneros’ minute

order stated as follows:

8/9/10: CISNEROS: CMD: NETWORK 1:50 PM HEAR: TF

PRO SE; ATIY WHITE FOR DEF; HEARING REGARDING
PTF’S COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF; ATTY WHITE MOVES TO DISMISS THE CASE
BECAUSE PTF FILED THE EXACT COMPLAINT IN CASE NO.
10CV260 IN DIVISION 7. ARGUMENTS; COURT GRANTS
CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS. PTF’S REMEDY WAS TO
APPEAL JUDGE GILBERT’S RULING, NOT TO FILE A NEW
CASE. THIS CASE IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.
JUDGE CISNEROS/TMC

7. Respondent Bruce was present in court when Judge

Cisneros entered her order. Respondent stated words to the effect

that he was going to have other members of his political action

committee file similar lawsuits.

8. On August 12, 2010, Helen Collins, an ally of Respondent

Bruce, filed a complaint nearly identical to the complaints in the

Bruce actions. Helen Collins u. City of Colorado Springs, El Paso

County District Court, Case No. 10CV343 (the “Collins case”). The

case was assigned to Judge David Miller.

9. On the same day, August 12, 2010, Douglas Stinehagen,

another ally of Respondent Bruce, filed a complaint nearly identical

3
 to the complaint in the Collins case. Douglas Stinehagen v. City of

Colorado Springs, El Paso County District Court, Case No. 10CV344

(the “Stinehagen case”). The case was assigned to Judge Ronald

Crowder.

10. On August 20, 2010, Judge Crowder held a status

conference in the Stinehagen case. The City Attorney brought the

nearly identical complaint in the Collins case to Judge Crowder’s

attention. Upon seeing that the two complaints were essentially

identical, Judge Crowder asked Mr. Stinehagen: “Who wrote your

complaint?” Mr. Stinehagen answered: “Mr. Bruce.”

11. The City Attorney moved for consolidation of the Collins

case and the Stinehagen case. Mr. Stinehagen objected. Judge

Crowder asked Mr. Stinehagen whether he wanted to file a brief on

the issue. From the audience, Respondent Bruce in a loud voice

answered “No.”

12. The Collins case and the Stinehagen case were

consolidated before Judge Miller. The City moved to dismiss the

consolidated cases. On August 25, 2010, Judge Miller held a

hearing. Ms. Collins, Mr. Stinehagen and Respondent Bruce were

present.

4
 13. In answer to the Judge’s questions, Mr. Stinehagen

admitted that he did not have legal training and that he had not

drafted his complaint.

14. Ms. Collins asked for leave to have Respondent come

forward and address the Court on the question of whether her

complaint raised the same issue as the complaints in the Bruce

actions.

15. Judge Crowder declined to allow Respondent Bruce to

make legal argument.

16. Despite the Judge’s direction, Respondent began to speak

The Judge warned him: “Mr. Bruce, you are not to be commenting

on the case, unless you want to practice law without a license.”

17. Respondent Bruce then began writing notes to Ms. Collins

and Mr. Stinehagen.

18. Mr. Stinehagen read from the notes to the Judge,

distinguishing between the Bruce cases and his case.

19. The Judge took the notes and marked them as an Exhibit.

20. The Judge made a record that Respondent had written

notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, trying to tell them what to

say.

5
 21. Respondent Bruce offered to testify as an expert witness.

22. The Judge asked Respondent whether he wished to be

joined in the consolidated cases.

a.) Respondent Bruce then spoke at length, including

concerning the supposed differences between the Bmce case

before Judge Gilbert and the consolidated Collins and

Stinehagen cases.

b.) Respondent Bruce argued that Article XX, §9 of the

Constitution applied to the injunctive and declaratory relief

requested by Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen, rather than

Article XX, §6, as Judge Gilbert had ruled.

c.) Respondent Bruce argued that the City Charter,

state statutes and the Constitution supported the relief

requested in the Collins and Stinehagen complaints.

23. Respondent Bruce then addressed the question of

collateral estoppel.

a.) Respondent argued that he was not in privity with

Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen. As a result, their cases

were not barred by collateral estoppel based in Judge

Gilbert’s dismissal of the first Bruce case.

6
 b.) He also contended that Ms. Collins’ and Mr.

Stinehagen’s right to seek redress of violations of their

constitutional rights should not be foreclosed on the basis

that he (Respondent) previously had filed a similar suit.

24. After concluding his remarks, Respondent Bruce

continued to hand notes to Ms. Collins, instructing her on what to

say.

Request for Relief

25. The unauthorized practice of law includes but is not

limited to an unlicensed person’s actions as a representative in

protecting, enforcing or defending the legal rights and duties of

another and/or counseling, advising and assisting that person in

connection with legal rights and duties. See, People v. Shell, 148

P.3d 162 (Cob. 2006); and Denver Bar Assn. v. P.UC., 154 Cob.

273, 391 P.2d 467 (1964). In addition, preparation of legal

documents for others by an unlicensed person, other than solely as

a typist, is the unauthorized practice of law, unless the Colorado

Supreme Court has authorized such action in a specific

circumstance. Title Guaranty v. Denver Bar Ass’n, 135 Cob. 423,

312 P. 2d 1011 (1957). In particular, the activities that are

7
 prohibited involve the lay exercise of legal discretion, such as advice

to clients regarding legal matters, preparation of court pleadings

and appearance in court. People v. Adams, 243 P.3d 256, 266

(Cob. 2010).

26. Respondent Bruce — an unlicensed person — engaged in

the unauthorized practice of law by drafting Complaints to be filed

by Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen in their own names.

27. Respondent Bruce further engaged in the unauthorized

practice of law by making legal argument to Judge Miller at the

August 25, 2010 hearing, in opposition to the motion of the City to

dismiss the Collins and Stinehagen cases on grounds of collateral

estoppels, and by passing notes to Ms. Collins and Mr. Stinehagen

directing them what argument to make.

28. The Respondent does not fall within any of the statutory

or case law exceptions.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this court issue an

order directing the Respondent to show cause why the Respondent

should not be enjoined from engaging in any unauthorized practice

of law; thereafter that the court enjoin this Respondent from the

practice of law, or in the alternative that this court refer this matter

8
to a hearing master for determination of facts and

recommendations to the court on whether this Respondent should

be enjoined from the unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore,

Petitioner requests that the court impose a fine for each incident of

unauthorized practice of law, not less than $250.00 and not more

than $1,000.00; award costs to the Petitioner, and any other relief

deemed appropriate by this court.

Respectfully submitted this of May 2011.

Kim
Assistant Regulation Counsel
Attorney for Petitioner