We will not take unemployment cases on a contingent fee basis.  Why?

a)  Contingency fees can be frustrating to clients and attorneys.  Contingency fees are usually a problem for the client or attorney:

• If a case resolves quickly, such as when the other party gives up, clients may feel frustrated that the attorney was paid more than the attorney deserves.
• If a case goes longer than expected, the attorney may be frustrated by lost time and expenses.

b)  Our fees are below market for licensed attorneys.  Other websites claim that attorneys require retainers up to $2,000.  We don’t.  The most you will pay for our experience, counsel and hard work is $750 to $900.  We allow payment by installments.  If we spend very little time helping you, you will only pay us for actual time spent.  Our fees a low, and predictable.

c)  Our experience is that some clients who are  unwilling to pay us as the work is done, become even more unwilling once the job is over.  Like everyone else who works for a living, we have people who depend on us to pay the bills.

The Colorado Department of Labor is both judge and jury when it comes to repayment demands, allegations of fraudulent reporting, and audits of employers.  Our experience has been that the Unemployment Insurance Integrity, Benefit Payment Control section assumes everyone is a liar and cheat.  The section will not talk to you, or negotiate repayments, once it decides that you have been overpaid.  I have represented more than one claimant who was wrongly advised how to report income by a clerk at the Department of Labor, but the collectors working for Colorado refuse to acknowledge that is possible.  They tell you if you don’t like their determination you should  appeal.  So, appeal.  There is some hope.

Last week we overturned a determination by the section that a woman should repay two years of benefits, plus penalties.  Our client’s father gave her money to meet her expenses while she was unemployed and simultaneously receiving unemployment benefits.  The Benefit Payment Control  section treated the gifts by her father as wages, like she had a job.  It demanded that she repay the State her benefits, plus a 50% penalty.  It took persistence, and the hearing officer at the first stage ignored our evidence, but the Industrial Claims Appeals Office finally recognized what a mistake  the Benefit Payment Control people had made.

Two weeks ago we had a demand for repayment completely overturned.  Benefit Payment Control somehow confused our client with another person, and that other person’s wages were considered evidence that our client had a job while receiving unemployment.  The State was stubbornly wrong.  The State refused to respond to our client’s attempts by phone and letter to correct the error.  Had our client appealed on time, we could have fixed the problem quickly.  But, instead of appealing, he wrote letters.  By the time we got the case, the State was arguing that all appeals rights had been waived.  It was going to force our client to repay benefits based on some stranger’s wages.  We got this fixed by going over the heads of the collectors, but were forced to file a lawsuit against the Department of Labor first.  The lesson:  Don’t assume the Department will treat you right because you are in the right.  Assert your right to appeal, on time.

An unemployed person in Colorado can access 63 weeks of unemployment insurance.   26 weeks are funded by the State of Colorado.  The remaining 37 weeks are part of federal extended benefits which President Obama enacted.  Those 37 weeks are broken up by Colorado into 3 tiers.  The first two tiers last 14 weeks, and the final tier lasts 9 weeks.  As of April 28, 2013, an 18.2% reduction in benefits is being applied as individuals move from one tier to the next.  This results from belt tightening by the US Department of Labor.

Senate Bill 13-023, effective July 2013, increases the limit on personal injury damages which may be recovered from public entities and public employees.  The increase for any injury to one person in any single occurrence jumps from the sum of one hundred fifty thousand to three hundred fifty thousand dollars.

Public entities and public employees means means the state, county, city and county, municipality, school district, special improvement district, and every other kind of district  created under Colorado law.  It does not mean the federal government, or federal employees.

Senate Bill 13-018, signed by the Governor on April 19, says:

AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT USE CONSUMER CREDIT
INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYMENT PURPOSES UNLESS THE INFORMATION IS
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE’S CURRENT OR POTENTIAL JOB.
AN EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYER’S AGENT, REPRESENTATIVE, OR DESIGNEE
SHALL NOT REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO CONSENT TO A REQUEST FOR A CREDIT
REPORT THAT CONTAINS INFORMATION ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE’S CREDIT
SCORE, CREDIT ACCOUNT BALANCES, PAYMENT HISTORY, SAVINGS OR
CHECKING ACCOUNT BALANCES, OR SAVINGS OR CHECKING ACCOUNT
NUMBERS AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS:
(I) THE EMPLOYER IS A BANK OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION;
(II) THE REPORT IS REQUIRED BY LAW; OR
(III) THE REPORT IS SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE’S
CURRENT OR POTENTIAL JOB AND THE EMPLOYER HAS A BONA FIDE PURPOSE
FOR REQUESTING OR USING INFORMATION IN THE CREDIT REPORT THAT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE EMPLOYEE’S CURRENT OR POTENTIAL JOB
AND IS DISCLOSED IN WRITING TO THE EMPLOYEE.

Thanks to Senator Jessie Ulibarri, who carried this important legislation.

Scott v. Stutheit.  Quiet title dispute over quarter section of land in Yuma County.  Decided by the Colorado Supreme Court  in 1915.

Routt County Mining Co. v. Stutheit.  Dispute about a mining lease.  Decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1937.

When a contractor and owner have an agreed contract price, the contractor may not lien the property for more than the contract price by claiming that the value of the work was more than the contract provided. Byerly v. Bank of Colorado.  Colorado Court of Appeals decision published March 14, 2013

  We look across the highway to the hogback.  In the fall, the scrub takes on color.  The dirt below is red.  Looking north from our office we see Red Rocks amphitheater.  This winter a bull elk and cow strolled through our Starbucks parking lot.  I have biked so close to deer that I could smell them.  They smell like horses.

Where do I bike from here?  Along the 470 trail to Chatfield Reservoir or Bear Creek State Park.  On a high energy day, up Dinosaur Ridge.  Into downtown Littleton.   Along the Platte River.

Why not a law office in downtown Denver?  Why?

The premises liability act makes it almost impossible for an adult trespasser to sue the property owner.  A trespasser may recover only for damages willfully or deliberately caused by the landowner.

However, children under age 14 may be trespassers, and still sue the landowner for injuries suffered under Colorado’s “attractive nuisance doctrine.”  If a child was attracted onto the premises by an unusual activity being carried out on the premises or by an unusual condition, other than a natural condition, existing on the premises, the child will be treated as an invitee.  See blog posted April 8, 2013 for discussion of duties owed by landowner to invitees.

Common examples of attractive nuisances include unprotected pools, trampolines, defective play structures, old cars, piles of sand and debris, ponds, and dangerous animals.

Under the premises liability act, social guests are classified as “licensees.”  Any person who enters or remains on the land of another for the person’s own convenience or to advance his own interests, pursuant to the landowner’s permission or consent, is also a licensee.

A licensee may recover only for damages caused: