Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
Citation | Vol. 31 No. 10 Pg. 153 |
Pages | 153 |
Publication year | 2002 |
2002, October, Pg. 153. Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Vol. 31, No. 10, Pg. 153
The Colorado Lawyer
October 2002
Vol. 31, No. 10 [Page 153]
October 2002
Vol. 31, No. 10 [Page 153]
From the Courts
Matters Resulting In Diversion and Private Admonition
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Matters Resulting In Diversion and Private Admonition
Colorado Supreme Court Office of Regulation Counsel
Editor's Note: Articles describing diversion agreements
and private admonitions 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 and Private
Admonition Summaries
Admonition 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 18, 2002, through August 19, 2002, at the intake
stage, Regulation Counsel entered into 18 Diversion
Agreements involving 24 separate requests for investigation.
ARC approved 9 Diversion Agreements involving 16 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 may preclude Regulation Counsel from
agreeing to diversion. See C.R.C.P. 251.13(b).
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. Furthermore, the
Diversion Agreement also will address some of the systemic
problems an attorney may be having. For example, if an
attorney engaged in minor misconduct (neglect), and the
reason for such conduct was 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 conducted 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. Note: The terms of a Diversion Agreement may not
be detailed in this summary if the terms are generally
included within Diversion Agreements.
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 or malpractice insurance exits; violation of
a criminal statute, in violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(b); conduct
that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, in
violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(d); conflicts of interest, in
violation of Colo. RPC 1.7, Colo. RPC 1.8(a), and Colo. RPC
1.9; failure to respect the rights of third persons
concerning the use of medical records, in violation of Colo.
RPC 4.4 and Colo. RPC 8.4(b); and threatening prosecution, in
violation of Colo. RPC 4.5.
Some cases resulted from personal problems the attorney was
experiencing at the time of the misconduct. In those
situations, the Diversion Agreements may include a
requirement for a mental health evaluation and, if necessary,
counseling to address the underlying problems of depression,
alcoholism, or other mental health issues that may be
affecting the attorney's ability to practice law.
Random Samples of Diversion
Agreements
Agreements
Criminal Conduct
- The respondent physically attacked a car and left the
scene. As a result, the respondent was charged with criminal
mischief (offensive gesture) and disorderly conduct. During
the arraignment, the respondent was given one month to
consider whether to plead to a reduced charge of disorderly
conduct. The respondent failed to appear for the next court
date and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued. The
respondent pled guilty to disorderly conduct and agreed to
pay $500 restitution for reimbursement of the deductible
required to repair damage to the car. The respondent did not
report his conviction to the Office of Attorney Regulation
Counsel. The rules implicated are Colo. RPC 8.4(b), Colo. RPC
8.4(g), and C.R.C.P. 251.20(b).
- The respondent was observed weaving and speeding while
driving. The respondent was arrested and found to have a
blood alcohol concentration ("BAC") of .158. This
was the respondent's first alcohol-related offense and
involved no injuries or property damage. The respondent pled
guilty to DWAI and was sentenced to twelve months of
probation and twenty-four hours of useful public service, in
addition to fines and costs. The respondent had completed
Level II alcohol education prior to her alcohol evaluation.
The rules implicated are Colo. RPC 8.4(b) and C.R.C.P.
21.5(b).
- An individual parked her car in a reserved parking space,
left her car unlocked in the space for approximately one
hour, then returned and drove away, and later discovered that
her purse and a compact disc case holding approximately fifty
CDs were missing from her vehicle. The respondent sent the
individual a letter stating, "As a result of your
trespass parking in an unauthorized parking space and the
inconvenience you caused in that regard, we are in possession
of a packet of 48 CDs and a small purse which contains a few
credit cards and a comb." The letter provided
information regarding the steps the individual would have to
take to retrieve her property. On an unrelated matter, while
representing a client, the respondent asked for overdue fees
and an advance on fees prior to completion of a client's
case. The client requested that the respondent allow him to
make monthly payments for the balance owed and future fees in
the case. The respondent agreed but asked the client to sign
a promissory note and deed of trust on client's house to
secure the respondent's interest in being paid. The
respondent presented them to the client shortly before the
scheduled final hearing in the case, but they were not signed
until after the case was actually settled. The respondent
failed to advise the client that the use of independent
counsel may be advisable, in light of the fact that the
respondent was taking an adverse interest in client's
property and thereby neglected to give his client a
reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent
counsel in the transaction. The rules implicated are Colo.
RPC 8.4(b), Colo. RPC 8.4(g), and Colo. RPC 1.8(a).
- The respondent was at a bar in Breckenridge with some
friends. After drinking alcohol late into the evening, he
became separated from his friends. The respondent began
walking through the town of Breckenridge. He broke the door
of a pizza parlor, went inside, and immediately called the
police to advise them of what he had done. While he was
waiting for them to arrive, he ate pizza that was left over
in the restaurant. The police arrested the respondent for
burglary. The respondent was arrested by the sheriff's
department for violations of CRS § 18-4-203(1) (burglary,
second degree) and § 18-4-501 (criminal mischief). The
respondent entered into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, the respondent was placed on a two-year
deferred judgment for violation of CRS § 18-4-503(1),
second-degree criminal trespass. The rules implicated are
Colo. RPC 8.4(b) and Colo. RPC 8.4(g).
- The respondent was arrested for driving a vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol. Her blood alcohol content was
.454. The respondent was stopped again while driving her
vehicle and, as a result of a detection of...
To continue reading
Request your trial