C.R.C.P. 242.11

History

Source: Entire rule and comment added and adopted May 20, 2021, effective for cases filed with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge or the Supreme Court on or after July 1, 2021, and, as to all other matters covered by these rules, effective July 1, 2021. COMMENT All judges who are lawyers, even those not subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct, have duties to report convictions under this rule, in addition to any duty set forth in the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline. See also CJC 1.1 with respect to judges. C.R.C.P. 242.11(d) is not intended to require reporting of reciprocal dis- cipline by a lawyer who was reciprocally disci- plined in another jurisdiction based on disci- pline originating in Colorado. ANNOTATION Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Rule held constitutional. Rule provides suf- ficient 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). A most sacred duty is to maintain the in- tegrity of the law profession by disciplining lawyers who indulge in practices which are de- signed to perpetrate a fraud on the courts. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). Where the court specifically noted that the issue of contempt was not properly before the court, the trial court lacked authority to impose disciplinary sanctions against an at- torney, along with client, for failing to disclose at the settlement conference that funds were never paid into the directory. Mulei v. Jet Cou- rier Serv., Inc., 860 P.2d 569 (Colo. App. 1993). Applied in Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294, 435 P.2d 228 (1967); People ex rel. Aisenberg v. Y oung, 198 Colo. 26, 599 P.2d 257 (1979).