JEFFERSON CITY – Denver attorney Josue David Hernandez has been reprimanded following a Feb. 4 Missouri Supreme Court order issued after he was found to have failed in his duties to opposing party and counsel and his ethical obligation to follow court rules.
The court also ordered Hernandez to pay $750 to the credit of the advisory committee, in addition to costs.
Hernandez was admitted to the bar in Missouri on Sept. 17, 2008, according to his profile at the Missouri Bar's website. In addition to Colorado, Hernandez also is a member of the bar in New York, according to the 15-page brief filed in the disciplinary proceedings by the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
Allegations against Hernandez stem from a civil action filed by Hernandez's law firm partner in a Colorado federal district court in which 20 plaintiffs sued more than 100 insurance companies for denying their homeowners' policies claims, according to the disciplinary counsel's brief.
After the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, Hernandez filed a notice of appeal to which he attached a 72-page brief. In May 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order requiring Hernandez explain "why he should not be sanctioned for unreasonably increasing the cost of litigation," the brief said.
Examples cited by the appeals court included a January 2015 status conference when the court reminded counsel "to facilitate the efficient and expeditious resolution of the case," the brief said.
After that, Hernandez filed a 105-page post-judgment motion with 840 pages of exhibits, followed a month later by "an unauthorized 72-page brief to the notice of appeal." the brief said.
The Tenth Circuit ultimately entered a sanction admonishing Hernandez.
Hernandez was reciprocally admonished by the Colorado Bar and was censured in November 2018 by a Denver-based federal judge.
In his own 41-page brief filed in the Missouri disciplinary proceedings, Hernandez argued he could not be disciplined because he could not be found to have knowingly disobeyed federal court filing rules.
"Because there is, therefore, no sufficient basis to support discipline, the requisite analysis ends, and it would be both unnecessary and unwarranted for the court to consider the other factors that must be considered when imposing discipline," Hernandez's brief said.