Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Publication year | 2000 |
Pages | 117 |
Citation | Vol. 29 No. 10 Pg. 117 |
2000, October, Pg. 117. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Vol. 29, No. 10, Pg. 117
The Colorado Lawyer
October 2000
Vol. 29, No. 10 [Page 117]
October 2000
Vol. 29, No. 10 [Page 117]
From the Courts
Matters Resulting in Diversion
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Matters Resulting in Diversion
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Editor?s Note: Articles describing diversion agreements as
part of the Attorney Regulation System are published on a
quarterly basis. These articles are contributed by the
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Diversion Summaries
Background Information Regarding Diversion
Diversion is an alternative to discipline. See C.R.C.P
251.13. Pursuant to the rule and depending on the stage of
the proceeding, Attorney Regulation Counsel ("Regulation
Counsel"), the Attorney Regulation Committee
("ARC"), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
("PDJ"), the hearing board, or the Supreme Court
may offer diversion as an alternative to discipline. For
example, Regulation Counsel can offer a Diversion Agreement
when the complaint is at the central intake level in the
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. Thereafter, ARC or
some other entity must approve the agreement
From May 16, 2000, through August 15, 2000, at the intake
stage, Regulation Counsel entered into 11 Diversion
Agreements. From May 16 through August 12, 2000, ARC approved
18 Diversion Agreements involving 27 separate requests for
investigation. The PDJ approved one Diversion Agreement
during this time frame.
Regulation Counsel reviews the following factors to determine
if diversion is appropriate: (1) there is little likelihood
that the attorney will harm the public during the period of
participation; (2) Regulation Counsel can adequately
supervise the conditions of diversion; and (3) the attorney
is likely to benefit by participation in the program.
Regulation Counsel will consider diversion only if the
presumptive range of discipline in the particular matter is
likely to result in a public censure or less. However, if the
attorney has been publicly disciplined in the last three
years, the matter generally will not be diverted under the
rule. See C.R.C.P. 251.13(b). Other factors Regulation
Counsel considers that may preclude Regulation Counsel from
agreeing to diversion are set forth in the C.R.C.P.
251.13(b). For example, if the misconduct involves
dishonesty, misrepresentations, domestic violence, or is a
pattern of misconduct, the presumption is against diversion.
The purpose of a diversion agreement is to educate and
rehabilitate the attorney so that the attorney does not
engage in such misconduct in the future. It is also hoped
that a diversion agreement will address some of the systemic
problems an attorney may be having. For example, if an
attorney engaged in minor misconduct (neglect), and the
reasons for such conduct were the result of poor office
management, then one of the conditions of diversion may be a
law office management audit and/ or practice monitor. The
time period for a diversion agreement is generally no less
than one year or greater than two years.
Types of Misconduct
The type of misconduct dictates the conditions of the
diversion agreement. Although each diversion agreement is
factually unique and different from other agreements, many
times the requirements are similar. Generally, the attorney
is required to attend Ethics School that is organized and
taught by attorneys from the Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel. An attorney also may be required to fulfill any of
the following conditions: law office audit; practice monitor;
financial audit; restitution; payment of costs; mental health
evaluation and treatment; attend CLE courses; and any other
conditions that may be appropriate for the particular type of
misconduct.
After the attorney successfully completes the requirements of
the diversion agreement, Regulation Counsel will close its
file, and the matter will be expunged pursuant to C.R.C.P.
251.33(d). If Regulation Counsel has reason to believe that
the attorney has breached the Diversion Agreement, then
Regulation Counsel must follow the steps provided in C.R.C.P
251.13 before an agreement can be revoked.
The types of misconduct resulting in diversion for the time
period described above, generally involve the following: an
attorney?s neglect of a matter and/or failure to communicate,
in violation of Colo. RPC 1.3 and Colo. RPC 1.4, where the
client is not harmed or restitution is paid to redress the
harm; conflicts of interest, in violation of Colo. RPC
1.7(b); violating a court order, in violation of Colo. RPC
3.4; and threatening criminal or administrative action to
gain an advantage in a civil case against the opposing party
or attorney, in violation of Colo. RPC 4.5.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial