Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, Court
of Appeals Case No. 16CA1473
Attorneys
for Petitioner: Francisco E. Ruybalid, Trinidad, Colorado,
Limited Appearance by Steven Lawrence Jensen, Golden,
Colorado
Attorneys
for Respondents Board of County Commissioners of the County
of Huerfano, Gerald Cisneros, Ray Garcia, and Max Vezanni:
Garrett Sheldon, Walsenburg, Colorado
Attorneys
for Respondents Board of County Commissioners of the County
of Las Animas, Anthony Abeyta, Gary D. Hill, and Mack Louden:
Newnam Land LLP, Mary D. Newnam, Wimberley, Texas
OPINION
JUSTICE
BOATRIGHT
Page 424
[¶1]
Francisco Ruybalid was accused of numerous ethical violations
arising out of cases that he either prosecuted or supervised
while he was the District Attorney for the Third Judicial
District of Colorado. Ultimately, Ruybalid admitted to 26
violations in exchange for another 138 alleged violations
being dismissed. As a result of initially contesting the
allegations of misconduct, Ruybalid incurred substantial
attorneys fees and costs during the disciplinary proceeding.
The counties of the Third Judicial District refused to
reimburse Ruybalid for these expenses. We must now determine
whether the counties are obligated to reimburse Ruybalid for
these attorneys fees and costs under section 20-1-303,
C.R.S. (2018), which directs a county to reimburse a district
attorney for "expenses necessarily incurred in the
discharge of his official duties for the benefit of [the]
county."[1]
[¶2]
We conclude that because Ruybalids ethical violations were
at times committed recklessly or knowingly, his attorneys
fees and costs were not necessarily incurred in the discharge
of his official duties. Hence, we hold that Ruybalid is not
entitled to reimbursement for the attorneys fees and costs
that he incurred in defending the disciplinary proceeding
against him, and therefore he failed to state a claim for
relief in his original complaint. As a result, we affirm the
court of appeals decision on different grounds.
I. Facts and Procedural History
[¶3]
Ruybalid served as District Attorney for the Third Judicial
District of Colorado, which comprises Las Animas and Huerfano
Counties (the Counties). During Ruybalids term as district
attorney, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel filed two
disciplinary complaints against him that alleged over 150
ethical violations related to his failure to provide
discovery in cases that he either prosecuted or supervised.
During the ensuing disciplinary proceeding, the Counties
refused to assume the cost for Ruybalids defense;
[2]
as a result, Ruybalid hired private counsel.[3] The
disciplinary proceeding eventually resolved when Ruybalid
entered into a stipulation. In that stipulation, Ruybalid
admitted that he had failed to provide the required discovery
in eighteen cases. Ultimately, Ruybalid admitted to
twenty-six ethical violations: eight violations of Colo. RPC
1.3 (failure to act diligently and promptly in representing a
client); eight violations of Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice); and ten violations of Colo. RPC 5.1(b) (failure to
make reasonable
Page 425
efforts to ensure that subordinate lawyers conform to the
Rules of Professional Conduct). In return, 138 alleged
ethical violations were dismissed. For purposes of
determining the appropriate sanction, Ruybalid stipulated
that his mental state varied during each ethical violation
from negligent, to reckless, to knowing. As a result of the
stipulation, Ruybalid agreed to pay over $ 23,000 in costs
incurred in the disciplinary proceeding; he was then
suspended from practicing law for six months, which was
stayed pending his successful completion of a
twenty-three-month probation period. In addition to the $
23,000 in costs, Ruybalid claims to have accrued over $
200,000 in attorneys fees.
[¶4]
After resolving the disciplinary case, Ruybalid filed a
complaint in district court for a declaratory judgment and
attached a copy of the stipulation from the disciplinary
proceeding. In the complaint, Ruybalid asserted that the
Counties were obligated to reimburse him for the attorneys
fees and costs that he incurred during the disciplinary
proceeding as well as the costs that he would incur in
complying with the terms of his probation. Ruybalid argued
that the fees and costs from the disciplinary proceeding were
"expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of his
official duties for the benefit of" the Counties under
"the DA Expense Statute"— section 20-1-303.
Ruybalid pointed to two other sources of potential authority
to support his argument that the Counties were obligated to
reimburse him: section 24-10-110, C.R.S. (2018), of the
Colorado Government Immunity Act (CGIA) and Colorado
Counties Casualty & Property Pool v. Board of County
Commissioners, 51 P.3d 1100 (Colo.App. 2002) (holding
that a district attorney was entitled to attorneys fees
incurred while defending against a wrongful discharge
lawsuit).[4] The Counties moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim under C.R.C.P.
12(b)(5).
[¶5]
The district court granted the motion to dismiss. It first
found that Ruybalids actions were disallowed by ethical
canons. For this reason, the court concluded that his conduct
did not constitute performance of the official duties of a
district attorney, and thus was not covered by the DA Expense
Statute. Additionally, the district court found that section
24-10-110 of the CGIA did not cover Ruybalids attorneys
fees because there was no injury sustained by a third
party— a requirement under the CGIA. Finally, the court
concluded that Colorado Counties was distinguishable
...