Annotation Law reviews. For article, “Constitutional Law”, which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with questions of due process in attorney disciplinary hearings, see 63 Den. U. L. Rev. 247 (1986). Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. This rule does not constitute a denial of due process even though the final arbiters of fact, the justices of the Colorado supreme court, do not personally hear the testimony of the accused attorney or other witnesses. Razatos v. Colo. Supreme Court, 549 F. Supp. 798 (D. Colo.), appeal dismissed, 455 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1415, 71 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1982). Recommendation of grievance committee’s hearing panel is advisory only, and it is incumbent upon the supreme court to exercise its independent judgment, taking into consideration the facts, circumstances, and background of the lawyer, to increase or decrease the recommended sanction. People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982). While the supreme court has always given the recommendation for discipline by the grievance committee great weight, the court reserves the right to exercise our independent judgment in arriving at the proper level of discipline. People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638 (Colo. 1986). Under this rule, the supreme court may accept the recommendation of the grievance committee or may impose such other discipline as may be proper under the circumstances. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). The selection of discipline to be imposed is ultimately a decision to be made by the supreme court after considering the appropriate factors and the purposes to be served by disciplinary sanctions. People v. Vigil, 779 P.2d 372 (Colo. 1989). As part of its constitutional and inherent powers, the supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction over lawyers, and possesses the plenary authority to regulate and supervise the practice of law in Colorado. In re Caldwell, 50 P.3d 897 (Colo. 2002); Matter of Greene, 2013 CO 29, 302 P.3d 690. This rule does not specifically authorize the appellate review of an order granting summary judgment, but that authority is reserved in C.R.C.P. 251.1(d). Matter of Greene, 2013 CO 29, 302 P.3d 690. Suspension of a license to practice law is not criminal punishment for purposes of the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment. In re Cardwell, 50 P.3d 897 (Colo. 2002). The primary purpose of lawyer regulation proceedings is to protect the public, not to punish the offending lawyer. In re Caldwell, 50 P.3d 897 (Colo. 2002). Factual findings of grievance committee are binding on the supreme court, unless the supreme court, after considering the record as a whole, concludes that the findings are clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. People v. Garnett, 725 P.2d 1149 (Colo. 1986) (apparently overruling People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982)). Supreme court is bound by the factual findings of the hearing board unless those findings are clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Court reviews questions of law de novo as in any appeal. In re Quiat, 979 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1999); In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008). Where hearing board determined that an allegation of the complaint was not proven by clear and convincing evidence because it believed respondent’s explanation of his actions rather than attorney regulation counsel’s allegations, supreme court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that no reasonable fact finder could have made that determination. In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008). An attorney may file exceptions to the findings of the grievance committee. People v. Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971). Exceptions to the report of the grievance committee will be ordered stricken where the attorney fails to support them by a reporter’s transcript or such portions thereof as would be necessary to enable the court to pass upon the exceptions. People v. Van Nocker, 176 Colo. 354, 490 P.2d 697 (1971). If an attorney files exceptions, he should also provide a reporter’s transcript to enable the supreme court to pass on the exceptions. People v. Murphy, 174 Colo. 182, 483 P.2d 224 (1971). Respondent’s exceptions stricken for failure to designate record as required by subsection (b)(4) of this rule. People v. Lutz, 897 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1995). There is no evaluation of evidence on review. In determining whether the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, it is not within the province of the supreme court to measure the weight of the evidence or to resolve the credibility of witnesses. People v. Distel, 759 P.2d 654 (Colo. 1988). Applied in People v. King, 191 Colo. 120, 550 P.2d 848 (1976); People v. Kane, 655 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1982).