An attorney who has been suspended for a period longer than one year must file a petition with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for reinstatement and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney has been rehabilitated, has complied with all applicable disciplinary orders and with all provisions of this chapter, and is fit to practice law.
If the attorney remains suspended for five years or longer, reinstatement shall be conditioned upon certification by the state board of law examiners of the attorney’s successful completion, after the expiration of the period of suspension, of the examination for admission to practice law and upon a showing by the attorney of such other proof of professional competence as the Supreme Court or a Hearing Board may require; provided, however, that filing a petition for reinstatement within five years of the effective date of the suspension of the attorney tolls the five-year period until such time as the Hearing Board rules on the petition.
The petition for reinstatement must set forth:
The Regulation Counsel shall submit an answer to the petition. Thereafter, the petition for reinstatement shall be reviewed in procedures identical to those outlined by these Rules governing hearings of complaints.
The Regulation Counsel may present evidence bearing upon the matters in issue, and the attorney seeking reinstatement shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the averments in the petition.
Any hearing held under sections (a) and (d) of this Rule shall be open to the public.
C.R.C.P. 251.29
This rule was previously numbered as 241.22.
Annotation Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Section 18-1.3-401(3) bars convicted felons from practicing law while they serve out all components of their sentences, including parole. In re Miranda, 2012 CO 69, 289 P.3d 957. Attorney serving mandatory parole portion of felony criminal sentence cannot be reinstated to practice of law until he has completed his felony sentence. In re Miranda, 2012 CO 69, 289 P.3d 957. Readmission conditioned upon full compliance with section (a) and full payment of costs and restitution. People v. Young, 673 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1984); People v. Rice, 708 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1985). Readmission conditioned upon full compliance with disciplinary orders issued in foreign disbarment. People v. Montano, 744 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1987). Even where suspension is only for six months, reinstatement can be conditioned on compliance with sections (c) and (e) and the undergoing of a mental health examination by a licensed mental health professional. People v. Goens, 770 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1989). Attorney suspended for only six months may be required to petition for reinstatement under section (c). People v. Garrett, 802 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1990). Reinstatement after six-month suspension may be conditioned upon compliance with sections (c) and (d) and a showing that the attorney’s ability to fulfill his responsibilities as a lawyer is not impaired by any depression from which he is suffering. People v. Sullivan, 802 P.2d 1091 (Colo. 1990). Person not entitled to admission to bar not entitled to reinstatement. Where a disciplined respondent was not qualified to take the bar examination in the first instance, he will never be entitled to apply for reinstatement pursuant to this rule. People v. Culpepper, 645 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1982). Rule permits court to negate automatic reinstatement provision in order of suspension for six months. People v. Mayer, 744 P.2d 509 (Colo. 1987). Fact that psychiatric condition contributed to violations of code of professional responsibility requires application to grievance committee for reinstatement, including presentation of evidence of psychiatric and emotional condition that indicates fitness to practice law. People v. Fleming, 716 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986). Requiring that a psychiatric evaluation precede reinstatement after suspension of longer than one year is justified by respondent’s erratic behavior with respect to his handling of cases on which discipline is based and his conduct during the disciplinary proceedings, including his threatening manner toward prosecutor. People v. Fagan, 745 P.2d 249 (Colo. 1987). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with section (b), payment of costs and restitution, and filing reports and making payments to referral service. People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (c) and (d) and the payment of costs and restitution. People v. Anderson, 817 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (c) and (d), full payment of restitution ordered in connection with felony tax convictions, and costs of disciplinary proceeding. People v. Mandell, 732 P.2d 813 (Colo. 1991). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (b) to (d), demonstration of mental and emotional fitness to practice, and the payment of costs. People v. Smith, 830 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1992); People v. Holmes, 921 P.2d 44 (Colo. 1996). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (b) to (d). People v. Moore, 849 P.2d 40 (Colo. 1993); People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184 (Colo. 1994). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (b) to (d), completion of drug and alcohol treatment, and the payment of costs and restitution. People v. Driscoll, 830 P.2d 1019 (Colo. 1992). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (b) to (d) and payment of costs. People v. Genchi, 849 P.2d 28 (Colo. 1993). Readmission of attorney disbarred after conviction for bank fraud conditioned upon demonstrating rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence, including whether he restored all amounts lost by the banks for which he is or was personally liable. People v. Terborg, 848 P.2d 346 (Colo. 1993). Reinstatement conditioned on proof by clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation. People v. Brenner, 852 P.2d 456 (Colo. 1993). Reinstatement conditioned upon compliance with sections (b) to (d) along with the conditions of reinstatement set forth in the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendation of the hearing board. People v. Kargol, 854 P.2d 1267 (Colo. 1993). Reinstatement of attorney suspended for one year and one day conditioned upon attorney demonstrating what amount of harm client suffered as a result of his misconduct, that he made appropriate restitution to her for that harm, and that attorney is emotionally and psychologically able to practice law. People v. Davies, 926 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1996). Complainant’s specific averments refuting attorney-respondent’s averments contained in the petition for reinstatement did not constitute affirmative defenses to the petition for reinstatement, thus shifting the burden of proof borne by attorney-respondent under C.R.C.P. 241.22(d) (now this rule) to the complainant. In re Price, 18 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2001). It was appropriate to require an attorney to petition for reinstatement under this rule, even though his period of suspension for violating disciplinary rule did not exceed one year, where the extraordinary number of previous matters in which the attorney was cited for neglect showed the need for a demonstration that he had been rehabilitated. People v. C De Baca, 862 P.2d 273 (Colo. 1993). Applied in People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981); People v. Archuleta, 638 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1981); People v. Barbour, 639 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1982); People v. Goss, 646 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1982); People v. Dwyer, 652 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1982); People v. Awenius, 653 P.2d 740 (Colo. 1982); People v. Craig, 653 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1982); People v. Kane, 655 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1982); People v. Roehl, 655 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1983); People v. Brackett, 667 P.2d 1357 (Colo. 1983); People v. Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1983); People v. Tucker, 676 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1983); People v. Baca, 691 P.2d 1136 (Colo. 1984).