Colorado

Civil Procedure

Rule 251.22 – Discipline Based on Admitted Misconduct

(a) Acceptance of Admission. An attorney against whom proceedings are pending pursuant to these Rules may, at any point in the proceedings prior to final action by a Hearing Board, tender a conditional admission of misconduct constituting grounds for discipline in exchange for a stipulated form of discipline. The conditional admission must be approved by the Regulation Counsel prior to being tendered to the committee or the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

If the form of discipline stipulated to is private admonition, the conditional admission shall be tendered to the committee for its review. The committee shall either reject the conditional admission and order the proceedings continued in accordance with these Rules, or accept the conditional admission and order private admonition imposed.

If the form of discipline stipulated to is disbarment, suspension, public censure, or a range that includes any of the former and private admonition, the conditional admission shall be tendered to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for review. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge or Presiding Officer of the Hearing Board shall, after conducting a hearing as provided in this Rule, if one is requested, either reject the conditional admission and order the proceedings continued in accordance with these Rules, or approve the conditional admission and enter an appropriate order.

Imposition of discipline pursuant to a conditional admission of misconduct shall terminate all proceedings conducted pursuant to these Rules and pending against the attorney in connection with that misconduct.

(b) Conditional Admission-Contents. A conditional admission of misconduct shall be set forth in the form of an affidavit, be submitted by the attorney, and shall contain:

(1) An admission of misconduct which constitutes grounds for discipline;
(2) An acknowledgment of the proceedings pending against the attorney; and
(3) A statement that the admission is freely and voluntarily made, that it is not the product of coercion or duress, and that the attorney is fully aware of the implications of the attorney’s admission.

If the conditional admission is tendered before a complaint is filed as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.14, it shall remain confidential if the form of discipline stipulated to is private admonition and its contents shall not be publicly disclosed or made available for use in any proceedings outside this Chapter except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by order of the Supreme Court.

(c) Conditional Admission-Hearing.

(1) Procedure. Within 14 days of the date a conditional admission is filed, the respondent or the Regulation Counsel may request a hearing before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. If a hearing is requested, it shall be set promptly.
(2) Notice. Not less than 14 days before the date set for the hearing on the conditional admission, the Regulation Counsel shall give notice of such hearing as provided in C.R.C.P. 251.32(b) to the respondent, the respondent’s counsel, and the complaining witness. The notice shall designate the date, place, and time of the hearing. The notice shall advise the respondent that the respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel at the hearing and to present argument regarding the form of discipline to be ordered.
(3) Complaining Witness. In addition to the foregoing, the notice shall advise the complaining witness that the complaining witness has a right to be present at the hearing and to make a statement, orally or in writing, to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge regarding the form of discipline.
(d) Stay of Proceedings. Proceedings conducted pursuant to these Rules that are pending before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge at the time a conditional admission is tendered may be stayed by order of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.
(e) Further Proceedings. If the conditional admission of misconduct is rejected and the matter is returned for further proceedings consistent with these Rules, the conditional admission may not be used against the attorney.

C.R.C.P. 251.22

Source: Amended and adopted June 25, 1998, effective January 1, 1999; c1 and c2 amended and adopted December 14, 2011, effective January 1, 2012, for all cases pending on or filed on or after January 1, 2012, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 1 b.

This rule was previously numbered as 241.18.

Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. The supreme court will deny attorney’s application to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law in the state of Colorado where the gravity of the attorney’s wrongful conduct necessitates disbarment. People v. Murphy, 174 Colo. 182, 483 P.2d 224 (1971). Surrender of a license pursuant to this rule is not confidential and will be made known to the National Disciplinary Data Bank for dissemination on a national basis to other agencies who license attorneys. People v. Culpepper, 645 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1982). Stipulation to 18-month suspension is reasonable and warranted, given the number and seriousness of the charges balanced against the mitigating factors. People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990). Stipulation to disbarment is appropriate where attorney pleaded guilty to felony menacing and had history of discipline. People v. Littlefield, 893 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1995). Attorney under investigation for misconduct may submit a stipulation and conditional admission at any time but inquiry panel should not normally accept it until the inquiry panel has authorized the disciplinary counsel to file a formal complaint. People v. Borchard, 825 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1992). Mitigating factors warranting suspension for three years. Conviction for distribution of cocaine is “serious crime” as defined in C.R.C.P. 241.16(e). However, mitigating factors including personal and emotional problems, full disclosure and cooperation with the grievance committee and the office of disciplinary counsel, and participation in interim rehabilitation warrant suspension from practice for three years. People v. Rhodes, 829 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1992). Mitigating factors warranting public censure. Attorney who stipulated to misconduct admitted to activities warranting public censure. People v. Odom, 829 P.2d 855 (Colo. 1992). Respondent’s multiple acts of violence are indicative of a dangerous volatility which might well prejudice his ability to effectively represent his client’s interests. Although respondent had taken major steps toward rehabilitation the acts committed were of such gravity as to require a public censure and a three-month suspension. People v. Wallace, 837 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1992). Stipulated agreement and recommendations of disbarment based on conditional admission of misconduct warranted where respondent practiced law while suspended. People v. Redman, 902 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1995). Also warranted where attorney misappropriated and commingled client funds, failed to communicate with clients, engaged in dishonest conduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, charged unreasonable fees, neglected legal matters, and failed to pay funds to which a third person was entitled. People v. Clyne, 945 P.2d 1386 (Colo. 1997). Stipulated agreement and recommendations of disbarment warranted where respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud. People v. Frye, 935 P.2d 10 (Colo. 1997). Stipulated agreement and recommendations of suspension for nine months based upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who was suspended in another state for neglect, failure to communicate, and failure to surrender documents and other client property after termination of representation. People v. McKee, 942 P.2d 494 (Colo. 1997). Stipulated agreement and recommendations of suspension for six months based upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s ability to practice law and for violating criminal laws of a state or the United States. People v. McIntyre, 942 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1997). Stipulated agreement and recommendation of suspension for 30 days based upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who committed unfair insurance claim settlement practices and tortious conduct in handling insurance investigation of fire claim that he was not competent to handle. People v. McClung, 953 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1998). Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on conditional admission of misconduct was warranted where respondent neglected and made misrepresentations in two separate legal matters. People v. Eagan, 902 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1995). Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on conditional admission of misconduct was acceptable where respondent was convicted of driving while ability impaired and had also appeared in court while intoxicated on two consecutive days. People v. Coulter, 950 P.2d 176 (Colo. 1998). Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on conditional admission of misconduct was warranted. People v. Williams, 936 P.2d 1289 (Colo. 1997). Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure with certain conditions and monitoring based upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who required that his associates sign a covenant that hindered a client’s right to choose his or her own lawyer and which placed a financial hardship upon a departing associate who might not be able to represent the client if the associate’s recovery would be limited to 25 percent or less of the total fee. People v. Wilson, 953 P.2d 1292 (Colo. 1998). Applied in People v. Brackett, 667 P.2d 1357 (Colo. 1983).