303.592.5900

Our Blog

Ogborn Mihm, LLP

COVID-19 UPDATE - OGBORN MIHM LLP IS OPEN
To protect public health and safety, access to our physical office is restricted and we are working remotely to serve our clients. Our attorneys are available to schedule convenient, remote meetings either by phone or video conference.
Please call (303) 592-5900 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for more information.

Nicole practices primarily in the areas of business litigation, including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and insider misconduct matters, and construction litigation, including construction defect cases.

Trade Secret and Trade Secret Protection: Knowing is Half the Battle

Waymo v. Uber.  Qualcomm v. Apple.  ZeniMax v. Oculus.  While high profile trade secret cases like these have become more prevalent in headlines over the past couple of years, intellectual property cases do not only arise in the context of well-known corporations.  The number of trade secret cases in general has risen exponentially, due in part to the increase in startups, small tech firms, and the mobility of employees.  Oftentimes, smaller businesses rely on trade secret protection for designs and processes to avoid the upfront expense of obtaining patents, which require public disclosure of the underlying science or process and typically only provide protection for a set number of years.

Continue reading
  923 Hits
923 Hits

The When, What and How of Litigation Holds

In 2003, “litigation holds” became one of the hottest topics in e-discovery. This shift was due to United States District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decisions in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. Looked at collectively, the judge made clear that, once a party reasonably anticipates litigation, it must take special actions to preserve relevant electronic evidence.  Colorado courts take the same approach. See, e.g., Turner v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136, 1149 (10th Cir. 2009)(duty to preserve evidence arises when party "knew, or should have known, that litigation was imminent").

Continue reading
  1356 Hits
1356 Hits

Fiduciary Duties Involved in Colorado Businesses; Part I - The Basics

Colorado offers a lifestyle that is attractive to many new businesses, and in recent years, we have seen an influx of residents and start-ups seeking to take advantage of all this state has to offer. But business people—and particularly friends entering into business on a handshake or “back-of-the-napkin” deal—should take care to draft business agreements up front in order to avoid the lawsuits that may ensue when disputes arise down the line. One particular area of concern that often times leads to the break-up of a business is a breach of fiduciary duty. But what is a fiduciary duty and how do you know if you are violating it? This series will first address the basics of fiduciary duties, the sources from which those duties come, and the enforcement of those duties. Then, each subsequent Part will address what those duties entail in relation to a partnership, limited liability company, and corporation.

Continue reading
  3836 Hits
3836 Hits

Competing with Non-Compete Provisions

You are married to your job. You are what you do. There is truth to the idea that we all identify ourselves with the profession we have chosen. So, what happens when someone tries to limit your ability to do that job? Most often, these limitations are presented in the form of a non-compete clause in a contract. Colorado does not look favorably on restricting competition or a person’s ability to work, and our legislature enacted law that defines very narrow exceptions to the general rule that covenants not to compete are void. Colorado Revised Statute Section 8-2-113 states that a contractual restriction on a person’s ability to perform “skilled or unskilled labor for any employer” is automatically unenforceable unless it falls into one of four categories.

Continue reading
  2196 Hits
2196 Hits

COLORADO’S NEW LAW ON PROVING COLLECTIBILITY IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS

When clients are harmed by the malpractice of a lawyer, they oftentimes face a second, potentially more complicated lawsuit. The plaintiff-clients must prove the underlying case against the original defendant(s) in which the lawyer committed malpractice, and they must prove the negligence of the defendant-lawyer in order to win the malpractice action. While Colorado courts have long recognized that the solvency or insolvency of the underlying defendant must be proven in a legal malpractice case, the courts had not, until recently, answered the question of whether that responsibility lies with the plaintiff or defendant lawyer.

Continue reading
  2750 Hits
2750 Hits

OGBORN MIHM LAWYERS’ ARTICLE CITED TO BY COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

The Colorado Appellate Court, in a written opnion, recently cited to a law review article written by Mike Cross and Nicole Quintana analyzing the issue of proving collectibility in legal malpractice actions. The appellate case is Gallegos v. LeHouillier, 2017COA35, found at https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2017/15CA0724-PD.pdf. The law review article, “Your Place or Mine?: The Burden of Proving Collectibility of an Underlying Judgment in a Legal Malpractice Action,” 91 Denv. U. L. Rev. Online 53 (2014), can be found at http://www.denverlawreview.org/storage/online-article-pdfs/2014/Your%20Place%20or%20Mine_FinalFormat.pdf.

  1815 Hits
1815 Hits

Colorado’s New Law On Proving Collectibility In Legal Malpractice Actions

When clients are harmed by the malpractice of a lawyer, they oftentimes face a second, potentially more complicated lawsuit. The plaintiff-clients must prove the underlying case against the original defendant(s) in which the lawyer committed malpractice, and they must prove the negligence of the defendant-lawyer in order to win the malpractice action. While Colorado courts have long recognized that the solvency or insolvency of the underlying defendant must be proven in a legal malpractice case, the courts had not, until recently, answered the question of whether that responsibility lies with the plaintiff or defendant lawyer.

Continue reading
  2942 Hits
2942 Hits

Your Place or Mine?: The Burden of Proving Collectability of an Underlying Judgment in a Legal Malpractice Action

While burdens of proof at trial do not necessarily equate to the awkwardness of a come-on during a date, the question “your place or mine” is still relevant to both, at least in Colorado. This article examines the seemingly unanswered question lingering in Colorado law as to whether a legal malpractice plaintiff bears the burden of proving collectibility of an underlying judgment in order to establish a prima facie case or whether a defendant bears the burden of proving collectability as an affirmative defense. Is it your place to prove it or mine?

Continue reading
  7782 Hits
7782 Hits

Contact Us