Report and Recommendations Concerning the Attorney Regulation System in Colorado
| Publication year | 2000 |
| Pages | 49 |
| Citation | Vol. 29 No. 10 Pg. 49 |
2000, October, Pg. 49. Report and Recommendations Concerning the Attorney Regulation System in Colorado
Vol. 29, No. 10, Pg. 49
The Colorado Lawyer
October 2000
Vol. 29, No. 10 [Page 49]
October 2000
Vol. 29, No. 10 [Page 49]
Features
Report and Recommendations Concerning the Attorney Regulation
System in Colorado
Editor?s Note: This report was made to the Justices of the
Colorado Supreme Court from the Attorney Regulation Advisory
Committee of the Supreme Court and is printed here to apprise
the members of the Colorado Bar Association of its contents
The appendices to this report are not included in this
printed version. Copies of the complete report are on file
with the Clerk of the Supreme Court
I. INTRODUCTION
By Order dated June 30, 1998, the Supreme Court significantly
revised the system by which attorney discipline and
disability proceedings are handled in Colorado. Some of the
new rules were effective as of July 1, 1998; others became
effective January 1, 1999. Among the principal changes made
were the creation of a procedure by which cases of minor
misconduct could be diverted to provide specific assistance
to the offending lawyer while adequately protecting the
public, the office of a presiding disciplinary judge was
established, and a focus on the prompt disposition of
complaints against lawyers was emphasized. The effect, often
dramatic, of these changes to the Court?s discipline and
disability rules will be outlined in this report, and in the
attached reports of the various entities that comprise the
Court?s attorney regulation system
The Supreme Court Advisory Committee was established as a
permanent committee of the Court by C.R.C.P. 251.34. Its
purpose, generally stated, is to assist the Court with
administrative oversight of the attorney regulation system.
The members of the committee are Justice Rebecca Love
Kourlis, Justice Michael L. Bender, Bethiah Crane, John
Lebsack, Bryan Morgan, Arthur S. Nieto, Erika Schafer, David
W. Stark, and William C. McClearn, Chair. Ms. Schafer is a
public member. The other members of the committee are judges
or lawyers. During its first few months, when the new rules
were being implemented, the committee met monthly and
sometimes more frequently. For the last year or so the
committee has met on a bi-monthly basis.
Among its activities, the committee screened, interviewed and
recommended to the Court applicants for the presiding
disciplinary judge position; appointed an administering
entity for the newly-mandated peer assistance program; and
considered and made recommendations to the Court on a number
of proposed changes to the disciplinary rules, as well as to
the Rules of Civil Procedure. Issues involving publication of
disciplinary decisions and orders, the operating procedures
of the Appellate Discipline Commission, and ongoing reports
from the Office of Regulation Counsel and from the Colorado
Lawyers Health Program, the peer assistance program, are
other matters to which the committee has given attention.
Principal responsibilities assigned to the committee are set
forth in Rule 251.34(b)(3) and (4). Those provisions direct
the committee to:
(3) Review the productivity, effectiveness and efficiency of
the Court?s Attorney Regulation System including that of the
presiding disciplinary
judge and peer assistance program and report its findings to the Supreme Court;
judge and peer assistance program and report its findings to the Supreme Court;
(4) Review the resources of the system for the purpose of
making recommendations to the Supreme Court;
This report is submitted pursuant to those provisions.
II. THE COMPONENTS OF THE REGULATION SYSTEM AND HOW THEY WERE
EVALUATED
There are five entities that comprise the attorney regulation
system in Colorado and for which the committee is charged
with assisting the Court in its oversight responsibility.
The Office of Regulation Counsel ("ORC") receives,
investigates and prosecutes all complaints against attorneys.
It has a host of other administrative duties as well as
responsibilities for somewhat unrelated activities such as
the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the State Board
of Bar Examiners, and others. This office has by far the
largest staff and requires the greater share of the financial
resources devoted to the regulation system.
The Attorney Regulation Committee ("ARC"),
essentially the former Grievance Committee, has nine members,
six of whom are lawyers while three are public members. This
committee, which meets monthly, principally reviews and acts
upon recommendations from the ORC regarding formal
complaints, dismissals after full investigation, diversion
agreements, and like matters.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ"), a new
position, is the principal judicial officer in the regulation
system. Judge Roger Keithley occupies this position and
serves at the pleasure of the Court. He has the
responsibilities set forth in C.R.C.P. 251.15, the most
significant of which are to conduct all pre-trial proceedings
in formal complaint cases, to preside as chair of the hearing
panel in contested matters, and to act upon a variety of
immediate suspension and similar matters.
The Appellate Discipline Commission ("ADC") is
composed of five lawyers and two public members. It exercises
intermediate appellate jurisdiction with respect to the
decisions of hearing panels.
The Colorado Lawyers Health Program ("CLHP"), a
Section 501(c)(3) organization that was for many years
primarily funded by the Colorado Bar Association, provides,
pursuant to a contract with the Advisory Committee, a peer
assistance program for all attorneys licensed to practice law
in Colorado. It also monitors the performance of diversion
agreements by a limited number of attorneys referred to it by
the ORC.
A subcommittee was appointed, consisting of John Lebsack,
David W. Stark, Mac V. Danford and William C. McClearn, to
draft this report, although the report has been reviewed and
approved by the committee as a whole. Lacking any precedent
for a report of this type, the sub-committee spent a good
deal of time discussing the performance criteria that should
be applied to each of the entities described above. Rather
than attempt to articulate precise criteria for each entity,
it tried to identify broad categories that should be
considered. The four main areas that were looked at were
these:
(a) How effective/efficient is the entity? This involved the
volume of work, timeliness of actions taken, and generally,
the productivity of the entity.
(b) Financial/budgetary issues. Here, the budgets of the
various entities were reviewed and attempts were made to
reach some conclusions as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial