Colorado

Civil Procedure

Rule 260.6 – Compliance

(1) Repealed.
(2) This subsection (2) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(1) and (2).
(3) This subsection (3) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(1) and (2).
(4) This subsection (4) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(2).
(5) This subsection (5) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(3) and (4).
(6) This subsection (6) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(4).
(7) This subsection (7) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(5).
(8) This subsection (8) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(6).
(9) This subsection (9) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(7) and (8).
(10) This subsection (10) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(8).
(11) This subsection (11) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.2(5).
(12) This subsection (12) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(9).
(13) This subsection (13) is repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 250.7(10).

C.R.C.P. 260.6

Source: Entire rule amended and effective December 4, 2003; IP5, 6, 7, 8, 9a, and 13 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; amended March 15, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.

Annotation Constitutionality. A state supreme court may constitutionally require attorneys to meet continuing legal education requirements, so long as such requirements have a rational connection with the attorney’s fitness or capacity to practice law, which the requirements in Colorado have. Verner v. Colo., 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984). This rule does not violate procedural due process. Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984). This rule does not violate federal separation of powers doctrine. The claim that this rule violates the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States constitution fails, since the principle of separation of powers is not enforceable against the states as a matter of federal constitutional law. Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984). The rule does not violate sixth amendment. This rule does not violate sixth amendment rights by not providing for a jury trial and not permitting consideration of “mitigating factors”. Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984). Suspension not “cruel and unusual punishment”. The claim that suspension from practice for violation of this rule constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is without merit, since the eighth amendment does not apply where loss of a license is the full extent of possible punishment. Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982), aff’d 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984). Jurisdiction of federal courts limited. Federal district courts only have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a state disciplinary rule. All claims that are addressed to particular conduct during the disciplinary proceedings are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Verner v. Colo., 533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colo. 1982),aff’d, 716 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 960, 104 S. Ct. 2175, 80 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1984).