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
Boatright, Justice.
¶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
attorney's 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 attorney's 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 Ruybalid's ethical violations
were at times committed recklessly or knowingly, his
attorney's 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
attorney's 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 Ruybalid's 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 Ruybalid's
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 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 attorney's 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
attorney's 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
attorney's 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 Ruybalid's 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 Ruybalid's
attorney's 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 because Ruybalid's cause of action
pertained to defending a claim of an ethical violation,
whereas Colorado Counties pertained to defending
against a tort claim.
¶6
The court of appeals affirmed on different grounds. It began
its analysis by applying the American Rule, which provides
that absent statutory authority to the contrary each party is
presumed responsible for its own litigation fees and costs.
Ruybalid v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 2017 COA 113,
¶ 8, P.3d (citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home,
Inc. v. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532
U.S. 598, 602-03 (2001); Bernhard v. Farmers Ins.
Exch., 915 P.2d 1285, 1287 (Colo. 1996)). Because the DA
Expense Statute did not overcome the American Rule's
presumption, the court of appeals concluded that the statute
could not be read to cover Ruybalid's attorney's fees
and costs. Id. at ¶¶ 11-13.
¶7
The court of appeals also differed from the district court in
its handling of section 24-10-110 of the CGIA and
Colorado Counties. The court of appeals refrained
from applying Colorado Counties because it "did
not agree with [the case]." Id. at ΒΆ 17.
And it concluded that there was "no ...