criminal act. The Hearing Board finds that the evidence presented in this consolidated matter meets that standard in both the Dunn and McCarthy transactions. The Complaint in the McCarthy matter also alleges that Rishel violated Colo. RPC 1.15(b)(upon receiving funds in which a . third person has an interest, a lawyer shall, promptly or otherwise as permitted by law ... deliver to the third person funds or other property that the ... third person is entitled to receive). The facts alleged in the McCarthy case establish that Rishel received property belonging to the MeCarthys and failed to timely deliver the tickets for which the funds were intended or return the funds. Consequently, Rishel's conduct also violated Colo. RPC 1.15(b) See People v. Garrow, 35 P.8d 652, 655 (Colo. OPDJ 2001)(<HOLDING>); People v. Vincent 35 P.S3d 140, 143 (Colo.
holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that the receipt of property by a lawyer in which a  third party has an interest triggers the operation of colo rpc 115b  and once triggered requires the attorney to return property of  another in a timely fashion in accordance with law holding that property is not abandoned by operation of law unless the debtor formally scheduled the property before the close of the case holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot