did not appear at a hearing set in August 1998. 49. Mr. Cuellar had been unable to contact the respondent for some time and the respondent has not contacted him. At the August 1998 hearing, the Judge informed Mr. Cuellar that he should obtain new counsel to represent him. 50. Mr. Cuellar continued to attempt to contact the respondent without sue-cess. He received no refund of the unearned advanced fee paid to the respondent. Based on the facts set forth above, and having had no further evidence presented at the hearing, the PDJ and Hearing Board find that the People have not established that Jaramillo abandoned his client by clear and convincing evidence. Cf. People v. Carvell, No. 99PDJ096 (Colo. PDJ September 11, 2000), 29 Colo. Law. 137 (November 2000), 2000 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 26, (<HOLDING>). Although the evidence is sufficient to
holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that individual attorneys and professional corporation were liable for excessive fees retained and owed to client holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that to find abandonment rather than merely neglect there must be proof that the attorneyduring a given time periodwas required to accomplish specific professional tasks for the client failed to accomplish those tasks and failed to communicate with the client and that the proof must objectively indicate that the attorney has deserted rejected andor relinquished the professional responsibilities owed to the client