(a)Permanent Committee. The Legal Regulation Committee (“Regulation Committee” or “Committee”) is a permanent committee of the supreme court.
(b) Membership and Meeting Provisions.
(1) Members. The Regulation Committee comprises at least nine members, including a Chair and Vice-Chair. At least six of the members must be lawyers admitted to practice in Colorado and at least two of the members must be nonlawyers. The supreme court appoints the members with the assistance of the Advisory Committee. Diversity must be a consideration in making appointments. Members serve one term of seven years. Members’ terms should be staggered to provide, so far as possible, for the expiration each year of the term of one member. So far as possible, appointments should be made to ensure an odd number of members.
(2) Dismissal, Resignation, and Vacancy. Regulation Committee members serve at the pleasure of the supreme court, and the supreme court may dismiss them at any time. A Regulation Committee member may resign at any time. The supreme court will fill any vacancies.
(3) Chair and Vice-Chair. Chair and Vice-Chair. With the assistance of the Advisory Committee, the supreme court appoints the Chair and Vice-Chair from the membership of the Regulation Committee. The Chair and Vice-Chair may serve in their respective roles for up to an additional seven years after their initial membership term, such that each may serve a total of 14 years on the Committee. The Chair and the Vice-Chair serve at the pleasure of the supreme court.
(4) Quorum. A majority of the members of the Regulation Committee constitutes a quorum, and the action of the majority of those present and comprising a quorum constitutes the official action of the Regulation Committee.
(5) Reimbursement. Regulation Committee members are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable travel, lodging, and other expenses incurred in the performance of their official duties.
(c) Powers and Duties. The Regulation Committee is authorized and empowered to act in accordance with this rule by:
(1) Making determinations as authorized by C.R.C.P. 251.1 et seq. regarding Attorney Discipline and Disability Proceedings (“these Rules”);
(2) Adopting practices needed to govern the internal operation of the Regulation Committee, subject to the supreme court’s or the Advisory Committee’s approval when needed;
(3) Periodically reporting to the Advisory Committee on the operation of the Regulation Committee; and
(4) Recommending to the Advisory Committee proposed changes to these Rules.
(d) Disqualification. Regulation Committee members must refrain from taking part in a disciplinary proceeding in which a judge, similarly situated, would be required to abstain. A Regulation Committee member must also refrain from making determinations under these Rules where a lawyer associated with the member’s law firm is in any way connected with the matter pending before the Regulation Committee.
(e) Special Counsel. If the Regulation Counsel has been disqualified or if other circumstances so warrant, the Regulation Committee or its Chair may appoint special counsel to conduct or assist with investigations and prosecutions in accordance with these Rules.
Source: Amended and adopted June 25, 1998, effective January 1, 1999; d amended and adopted October 29, 1998, effective January 1, 1999; entire rule amended and effective September 1, 2000; a1, a2, and a3 amended and adopted November 24, 2004, effective January 1, 2005; amended and adopted by the Court, En Banc, April 16, 2020, effective April 16, 2020, effective immediately.
This rule was previously numbered as 241.2.
Annotation Law reviews. For note, “Standards of Discipline for Attorneys in Colorado and the Significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility”, see 50 Den. L.J. 207 (1973). Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Rule held constitutional. Rule provides sufficient guidelines to impose attorney discipline and is not, therefore, unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process of law. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Grievance committee is committee of supreme court, not bar association. The grievance committee, functioning in disciplinary proceedings under the rules on the discipline of attorneys, ceases to be a representative of the bar association and becomes a committee of the supreme court, and as such is responsible solely to the court. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). It has no greater power than the court. The grievance committee acting as the investigating agent for the supreme court has no greater power or authority than the court. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). Confidential matters cannot be used for any other purpose than that of disciplinary action. No committee serving in the confidential capacity called for under the rules for discipline of attorneys can conduct hearing as the representative of the supreme court and thereafter make use of any confidential matters coming to its attention for any purpose other than that of disciplinary action if such action is warranted; and if such action is not warranted, it cannot use the data obtained as the basis for the publication of an opinion on ethics in which the identity of the original subject is divulged. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). The data gathered by the grievance committee are not public records and are not to be released unless by vote of the committee with the approval of the supreme court. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). Committee cannot escape responsibility for releasing information of intended investigations. Where a grievance committee functioning in the capacity of an agent and representative of the supreme court, or persons identified with it, releases information that it intends to investigate certain persons in connection with particular conduct in violation of the applicable rules, such committee cannot escape responsibility for the advance press publication of its intentions. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). The committee occupies a position of trust and confidence. When the supreme court calls upon a committee of the bar to conduct investigations in disciplinary proceedings, the members of that committee occupy a position of trust and confidence, and they must function under applicable rules. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958). Any such committee acting for the court should not be charged with duties as members of another committee of the bar association, a private organization, which might require the individual members to disregard the confidential nature of the duties they have assumed as an agent of the court. In re Petition of Colo. Bar Ass’n, 137 Colo. 357, 325 P.2d 932 (1958).
