CO · rules

C.R.C.P. 242.14

Formal Investigation of Allegations

activein force · 2021-07-01 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Commencement of Investigation.

(1) Initiation. A formal investigation may commence if the Regulation Counsel decides

to investigate under C.R.C.P. 242.13(b)(1)(B) or if the Regulation Counsel receives notice

that a lawyer has been convicted of a crime, other than serious crimes (which are addressed

in C.R.C.P. 242.15(c)).

(2) Notice. When the Regulation Counsel commences a formal investigation under this

section 242.14, the Regulation Counsel must give the respondent notice of the investigation and the allegations against the respondent.

(3) Response. If requested to do so, the respondent must submit to the Regulation

Counsel a written response to the allegations within 21 days. The Regulation Counsel may

require the respondent to provide a copy of the written response to the complaining

witness, except when a protective order entered under C.R.C.P. 242.41(e) restricts the

disclosure of information or when the Regulation Counsel otherwise determines that

certain information should not be disclosed to the complaining witness.

(b) Procedures for Investigation.

(1) Investigator. A member of the Regulation Counsel’s staff, a member of the

Regulation Committee, or a special counsel appointed under C.R.C.P. 242.4(e) may act as

investigator. The investigator must promptly investigate the allegations, which may include

conducting interviews and procuring evidence.

(2) Subpoenas.

(A) Issuance. During an investigation, the Regulation Counsel or the Chair of the

Regulation Committee may issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses,

including the respondent, and to compel the production of relevant documents and other

evidence.

(B) Production of Required Records. A respondent must produce records required to

be kept under Colo. RPC 1.15D in response to a subpoena duces tecum that is issued under

this section 242.14 and that requests such records.

subject to C.R.C.P. 45. Challenges to subpoenas must be directed to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge.

formal investigation, the respondent and the Regulation Counsel may enter into a stipulation to discipline as provided in C.R.C.P. 242.19 or to diversion as provided in C.R.C.P.

242.17. If a stipulation provides for diversion or private admonition, the parties must

submit the stipulation to the Regulation Committee for approval. If a stipulation provides

for public discipline, the parties must submit the stipulation to the Presiding Disciplinary

Judge for approval. When a stipulation has been submitted and approved under this section

242.14, no determination or written report under subsection (d) below is required.

(d) Results of Investigation. After an investigation by the Regulation Counsel’s staff,

the Regulation Counsel must make a determination under C.R.C.P. 242.15. After an

investigation conducted by an investigator who is not a member of the Regulation

Counsel’s staff, the investigator will submit a written report of investigation and recommendation to the Regulation Committee for a determination under C.R.C.P. 242.16.

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 For purposes of C.R.C.P. 45 a respondent subject to an investigation is considered a party, but a complaining witness is not considered a party. ANNOTATION Attorney under investigation is a ‘‘party’’ to the investigative proceedings and, there- fore, entitled, as required by the specific dis- covery provisions of the rules of civil proce- dure, to notice of the investigative subpoena and subpoena documents. Given the plain lan- guage of the rules, present and historic interpre- tation by attorney regulation counsel (ARC) of the rules, and the implications of a contrary interpretation that would render other rules in attorney discipline system moot and create a secretive system that discourages informal reso- lution of discipline claims, Attorney E was a ‘‘party’’ in his own investigation. Accordingly, ARC appropriately followed the specific provi- sions of C.R.C.P. 45, 26(a)(1)(B), and 30 by providing the attorney with notice of its sub- poena and the documents produced from that subpoena. In re Attorney E, 78 P.3d 300 (Colo. 2003) (decided under former rule 251.10). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Williamson, 470 P.3d 745 (Colo. O.P .D.J. 2016) (decided under former rule 251.10).

Provenance

Source: content.leg.colorado.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-15
Edition: 2026-09-15
Content hash: 75f953feb3b4ba4c164b81b1d6fa4a375ed5a5716057229884fac38862e9ca48

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs