Annotation Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former C.R.C.P. 241.4, which was 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). Supreme court regulation counsel and office of attorney regulation counsel are part of the judicial branch of state government because they are subject to the direction of the supreme court pursuant to this rule and participate in the process of regulating attorneys. Gleason v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 2012 COA 76, 292 P.3d 1044. Colorado Supreme Court disciplinary counsel is an “arm of the state” and not a “person” for the purposes of a suit for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bannister v. Colo. Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, 856 P.2d 79 (Colo. App. 1993). Disciplinary prosecutor, acting in an official capacity, is an “arm of the state” and not a “person” for the purposes of a suit for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bannister v. Colo. Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, 856 P.2d 79 (Colo. App. 1993). Disciplinary prosecutors, in their individual capacity, are absolutely immune from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when acting within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. Bannister v. Colo. Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel, 856 P.2d 79 (Colo. App. 1993).