The Colorado Supreme Court signaled this month that it may intervene in multiple trial court proceedings, including an unusual standoff in which a county court clerk’s office is allegedly refusing to accept a man’s payment that would enable him to appeal his eviction case.

At least four of the seven justices must agree to take up a case directly from the trial courts.

The court also indicated it will look at a judge’s order removing a law firm from representing the defendants in a civil lawsuit because of an alleged ethical conflict.

Finally, the justices took up a juvenile case at the end of April out of El Paso County, but the filings are not publicly available because of the subject matter. The court indicated only that the case involved a judge’s order granting a father relief pursuant to the rule generally covering “mistakes” and “inadvertence.”

Eviction appeal

On April 10, Justin Soliz represented himself in an eviction trial in Denver County Court and lost. By that time, Soliz had qualified for the Colorado Emergency Rental Assistance program and received approval for $10,000 to cover the amount he owed his landlord.

In order to appeal, Soliz needed to pay $7,300, plus his monthly rent of $1,300 directly to the court. Now represented by counsel, Soliz attempted to deposit the assistance check with the clerk’s office. The need to act was urgent because Soliz had received notice from the sheriff’s department that he should vacate his unit “immediately.”

However, in his lawyer’s telling, the clerk’s office for the court rejected the payment, saying the appeal bond and the monthly rent needed to be paid separately. The office allegedly clarified afterward that it would also not accept separate payments if they were in the form of a cashier’s check.

Soliz’s attorneys, seeking to halt, or stay, their client’s eviction until it could be appealed, filed an emergency motion for the clerk’s office to accept the $10,000 check. 

“Only due to unexpected and arbitrary administrative barriers is Mr. Soliz being prevented from obtaining a stay,” wrote lawyer Spencer Bailey.

On April 23, County Court Judge Brian C. Williamson denied the motion. He later added there was a “payment structure and accuracy issue,” not a problem with the form the payment took.

Soliz quickly sought review in Denver District Court, but Judge Karen L. Brody also rejected the motion because she concluded it was the county court’s role to halt the proceedings once the appeal bond was paid.

Finally, Soliz turned to the Supreme Court.

“In other words, if this Court does not intervene, Mr. Soliz will be evicted despite filing an appeal and attempting to pay the appeal bond with certified funds,” wrote Bailey. “Until Mr. Soliz’s case, Denver County Court Clerk’s Office was orally communicating to counsel in prior appeals that they would only accept ‘cash or certified funds’ to pay appeal bonds. When counsel has previously requested their policies in writing, that request has been denied.”

The Supreme Court halted the proceedings in Soliz’s case and, on May 5, ordered Williamson and Soliz’s landlord to explain why it should not order the clerk’s office to accept his check.

A spokesperson for the Denver County Court was not immediately able to provide Colorado Politics with the court’s written policies for accepting appeal bond payments.

The case is Shockcor Inc. v. Soliz.

Ethical conflict?

In 2016, the family of oil and gas executive Jack Grynberg filed suit over the ownership and control of his companies. Evidence indicated Grynberg’s cognitive decline resulted in him falling victim to scams. Grynberg, who died in 2021, lost the litigation.

In 2022, the administrator of his estate filed a malpractice suit against the lawyers who represented Grynberg, alleging they “pursued scorched-earth litigation tactics” that isolated Grynberg from his family and prevented him from receiving medical care for his cognitive issues.

Two of Grynberg’s adult children moved to intervene and sought to remove the lawyers representing the defendants from the case. They argued that a partner at the defense firm, Michael Mulvania, represented them in the prior litigation and there was a “substantial risk” he possessed confidential information that was relevant to the new lawsuit.

In an April 8 order, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Don J. Toussaint agreed with the Grynberg siblings.

“Mulvania substantially participated in the 2016 lawsuit. Mulvania billed 812.5 hours for work, and he was privy to privileged and confidential information throughout his representation in that matter,” wrote Toussaint. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, disqualification is warranted.”

The defense firm immediately turned to the Supreme Court. The attorneys argued any confidential information had already been disclosed publicly, that the firm had already implemented an “ethical screen” excluding Mulvania from the case and that Mulvania had “limited involvement” in the original litigation over Grynberg’s companies.

“To hold otherwise — in a case where nonparties have moved to disqualify counsel based upon the most attenuated and remote of circumstances — would dangerously expand the scope of permissible disqualifications, effectively prohibit ethical screens in any circumstance, and prejudice law firms of all sizes while incentivizing and proliferating the use of disqualification motions as litigation tactics,” wrote the attorneys.

On May 12, the Supreme Court directed Toussaint, the administrator of Grynberg’s estate and Grynberg’s children to respond to the petition.

The case is McMinimee v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP et al.