Annotation Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. It is not necessary that an attorney give notice pursuant to section (b) if he has not practiced law and has no clients. People v. Culpepper, 645 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1982). Technical violations of the disciplinary orders and rules will not always preclude reinstatement, rather the most important consideration is the nature of the violations. In re Price, 18 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2001). But denial of reinstatement is justified where attorney’s failure to provide required notice of suspension to each client has potential to cause harm and such failure adversely affects the protections afforded the public by the disciplinary orders and rules. In re Price, 18 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2001). Continuing to practice while suspended is conduct justifying disbarment. People v. James, 731 P.2d 698 (Colo. 1987). Total disregard of obligation to protect a client’s rights and interests over an extended period of time in conjunction with the violation of a number of disciplinary rules, the continuation of the practice of law after suspension, and an extended prior record of discipline requires most severe sanction of disbarment. People v. O’Leary, 783 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1989). Suspension of one year and one day imposed for failing to abide by notification procedures of this section in conjunction with violation of other disciplinary rules where attorney who was suspended from practice of law for failure to pay registration fee and subsequently failed to notify client in pending bankruptcy matter, failed to withdraw from bankruptcy matter before trial date, failed to take action to secure substitute counsel, move for continuance, or otherwise protect his client’s interest, and who failed to inform court or opposing counsel. People v. Smith, 828 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1992). Attorney’s continued practice of law while under an order of suspension, with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and the failure to take action to protect the legal interests of the attorney’s clients warrants disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992). An attorney who is suspended for failure to comply with CLE requirements is barred from practicing law under this rule and rule 5.5 of the Colorado rules of professional conduct, the same as if the attorney had been suspended following a disciplinary proceeding. Continuing to practice law after such an administrative suspension warranted an additional 18-month suspension. People v. Johnson, 946 P.2d 469 (Colo. 1997). Winding up affairs unnecessary. Where an attorney is presently suspended from the practice of law, it is not necessary that he be granted time to wind up his legal affairs. Disbarment is therefore effective on the date that the opinion was announced. People v. Susman, 787 P.2d 1119 (Colo. 1990). Accepting a retainer while suspended from the practice of law is sufficient, in conjunction with the violation of other disciplinary rules, to justify further suspension. People v. Redman, 819 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1991). A lawyer’s continued practice of law while under an order of suspension, with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and failure to take action to protect the legal interests of the lawyer’s clients, warrants disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992). Suspension of one year and one day appropriate for admitted solicitation of sexual favors when extensive mitigating factors were present. The instances of misconduct occurred over a short period of time during which respondent was undergoing emotional and personal problems, respondent voluntarily underwent psychological counseling, the psychologist indicated in writing that a reoccurrence of the offenses was seen as unlikely, and respondent had already received the sanction of a criminal conviction as a result of pleading guilty to harassment. Respondent was also the subject of several newspaper articles that reported his misconduct. People v. Crossman, 850 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1993). An attorney’s appearance as counsel of record in numerous court proceedings following an order of suspension warrants further suspension for one year and one day. People v. Kargol, 854 P.2d 1267 (Colo. 1993). Suspension for one year and one day is warranted where attorney mishandled client funds but where the court found several factors in mitigation such as the absence of a prior record, a reputation for honesty, and a demonstration of remorse. People v. Galindo, 884 P.2d 1109 (Colo. 1994). Suspension for one year and one day appropriate when attorney terminated representation without reasonable notice, failed to provide client with accounting and refund, and failed to meet continuing education requirements. Restitution required as condition of reinstatement. People v. Rivers, 933 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1997). Suspension for three years is warranted where attorney, in conjunction with violating numerous rules of professional conduct, violated this rule by failing to notify client by certified mail of order of suspension and attorney’s inability to represent client. People v. Hohertz, 926 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1996). Disbarment appropriate when attorney took no steps to protect the legal interests of his clients when he was placed under a suspension order. Attorney also had an extensive history of similar discipline. People v. Dolan, 873 P.2d 766 (Colo. 1994). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other violations is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Ebbert, 925 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1996); People v. Mannix, 936 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1997); People v. Fager, 938 P.2d 138 (Colo. 1997); People v. Swan, 938 P.2d 1164 (Colo. 1997); People v. Holmes, 955 P.2d 1012 (Colo. 1998); People v. Zimmermann, 960 P.2d 85 (Colo. 1998); People v. Alexander, 281 P.3d 496 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012 ). An attorney’s continued practice of law while under suspension is negligent where there is evidence that the attorney incorrectly believed that he had been reinstated and where there is no evidence that misconduct caused any actual harm. People v. Dieters, 883 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1994). Suspension for 90 days is warranted for attorney’s continued practice of law during a period of suspension in view of prior record and substantial experience in practice of law even if attorney incorrectly believed that he had been reinstated. People v. Dieters, 883 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1994). Suspension for 18 months is warranted where attorney failed to notify opposing counsel and trial court of suspension and where the attorney had extensive record of previous discipline. People v. Watson, 883 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1994). Public censure is warranted where, although the attorney failed to notify opposing counsel and appeared in one hearing after imposition of the suspension, the attorney’s involvement was minimal, it occurred only upon request by the client, it did not result in any harm to the client, and the attorney did not receive any benefit from the appearance. People v. Pittam, 917 P.2d 710 (Colo. 1996). Public censure warranted where, although respondent did not notify his clients and opposing counsel of his suspension, he did notify the court early in proceedings and did not go forward with court proceedings while on suspension and no actual harm was demonstrated to any of his clients. People v. Dover, 944 P.2d 80 (Colo. 1997). Conduct violating this rule is sufficient to warrant public censure. People v. Williams, 936 P.2d 1289 (Colo. 1997). Orders affecting disbarment or suspension are effective 30 days after the entry of the order or at such other time as the court may order. People v. Goldstein, 887 P.2d 634 (Colo. 1994). Applied in People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Harthun, 195 Colo. 38, 581 P.2d 716 (1978); People v. Pacheco, 198 Colo. 455, 608 P.2d 333 (1979); People v. Gifford, 199 Colo. 205, 610 P.2d 485 (1980); People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981); People v. Southern, 638 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1982); People v. Dwyer, 652 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1982); People v. Roehl, 655 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1983).