Summaries of Disciplinary Opinions

• Jurisdiction: Colorado,United States
• Citation: Vol. 33 No. 3 Pg. 115
• Pages: 115
• Publication year: 2004

33 Colo.Law. 115 Colorado Lawyer 2004.

2004, March, Pg. 115. Summaries of Disciplinary Opinions

---

115

Vol. 33, No. 3, Pg. 115

The Colorado Lawyer
March 2004
Vol. 33, No. 3 [Page 115]

From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases
Summaries of Disciplinary Opinions

The summaries for the Presiding Disciplinary Judge and hearing board are prepared by the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. The summaries of the Opinions of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge are provided as a service by the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official language of the Opinion. The Colorado Bar Association cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries.
Unless otherwise noted, full copies of the Opinions follow the summaries pages. The summaries and full-text Opinions are also available on the CBA home page at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/index.htm (see page 140 for details), as well as on Lexis NexisTM at http://www.lexis.com/research, by clicking on States Legal U.S./Colorado/Cases and Court Rules/By Court/Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Opinions

Summaries of Decisions Issued by the Presiding Disciplinary Judge
(Through December 23, 2003)

People v. Corbin, No. 02PDJ039, 11/20/03. Attorney Disbarred

The Hearing Board disbarred Respondent Charles C. Corbin attorney registration number 16382, following a sanctions hearing in this default proceeding. While under suspension in the state of Colorado, respondent filed appearances in twelve trademark matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), in violation of the rules governing the practice of law and relevant federal regulations. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.11 (2003). According to these regulatory provisions, the respondent could only practice before the PTO in trademark cases if he was in good standing of the Bar of any U.S. court or the highest court of any state. Evidence was presented that established the respondent was not in good standing in any court at the time of the incidents in question. Respondent continued to hold himself out as an attorney after his suspension in Colorado. In doing so respondent violated Colo. RPC 5.5(a). Respondent's failure to notify one client that he was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado and that he could not practice before the PTO in the area of trademark law constituted a violation of Colo. RPC 8.4(c). Respondent also violated Colo. RPC 3.4(c)...