James C Forslund

This review came from an anonymous source, so we are unable to address some of the specific concerns it raises. However, this client’s situation was very similar to the first case we had with new issues that had arisen at DMV on and after 02/21/17 in which we had been able to obtain a favorable ruling from another hearing officer shortly before, so there was a reasonable expectation of victory. We do not take cases on if there is not and can not guarantee specific results. As for Jim Forslund not being present to represent this client himself, it is a common situation that he is unable to appear at DMV hearings due to the press of other matters, so he has another attorney in the office attend in his place, which was the initial issue the reviewer had with our representation. When a client retains the firm, he is given business cards and is told there are two attorneys and a paralegal that will be working on his case. Gary, the attorney who attended the hearing, has 15 years with this office both defending DUIs and representing clients who have suspended licenses in other states. The fact that he, himself, has had a DUI makes him a more passionate advocate for clients who are dealing with this issue. The client was notified the day before that Gary would be at the hearing. Both attorneys review cases on a daily basis and thoroughly familiarize themselves with the facts and circumstances of each client, so the assertion that he “knew nothing of my case” is inaccurate. He only needed to know that it was a non-compact state that had created a hold on the issuance of a Colorado license. Only 4 states are not members of the Interstate Driver License Compact. Prior to 02/21/17 Colorado would issue licenses without hearings, even though these states had taken licenses away. There is a specific procedure for the other 46 states which provides for license hearings. The hearing officer to which to reviewer referred had just issued an unfavorable ruling in the second similar case, but in this instance she did not even enter a formal order, but instead only made notes in the file. Those notes indicated her decision to uphold that client’s revocation in direct opposition to the applicable law of 1 CCR 204-16 relative to the Interstate Driver's License Compact. That is the reason why Gary told him he “had issues” with her. After the hearing, Gary had other business to attend to and that is why he was in a hurry to leave. He did call the client after the hearing officer’s order was received to inform him he could appeal this adverse decision and referred him to another attorney to fight for his rights, since the firm doesn’t take on appeals to District Court. The client’s dissatisfaction with the ruling is understandable, but was not due to ineffectual representation. Clients pay a flat fee of $1,200 for our time and advice to guide them through the reinstatement process and take them to a hearing to appeal the DMV’s initial denial of getting their driver’s license due to the out of state revocation. We will also keep him abreast any changes and assist him if he is ever able to reinstate his driver privilege in the other state.

Our attorneys have each represented hundreds of DUI clients at county court trials throughout Colorado over the past 25 years where there are legitimate defenses and a reasonable expectation of prevailing. In every case, it is ultimately the client’s decision to pay an additional fee and proceed to motions and/or trial. We negotiate plea bargains on behalf of our clients in situations where conviction is inevitable and it is in their best interest to try and limit the inevitable consequences of a DUI arrest. DMV hearing notices are sent directly to our clients at their address on file with the state. We advise our clients to make sure DMV has their current address and that they check their mail daily. It is the client’s responsibility to inform us of the date and time of their scheduled revocation hearing.