C.R.C.P. 242.25

History

Source: Entire rule 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. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Statutes and Cases Concerning Unauthorized Practice of Law in Colorado’’, see 24 Dicta 257 (1947). For note, ‘‘Standards of Discipline for Attor- neys in Colorado and the Significance of the Code of Professional Responsibility’’, see 50 Den. L.J. 207 (1973). Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Consideration of charges not made in for- mal complaint against an attorney constitutes a violation of the respondent’s rights to proce- dural due process of law. People v. Emeson, 638 P.2d 293 (Colo. 1981). The rule does not require that a complaint limit the sanctions to which a person may be exposed or the precise elements upon which particular sanctions may depend. The rule could not require this given both the diverse nature of possible grounds for discipline and the multiplicity of considerations upon which par- ticular discipline may ultimately depend. People v. Kanwal, 2014 CO 20, 321 P.3d 494. Board’s findings that attorney engaged in dishonest conduct in collection matter con- travened requirement that the grounds for discipline be set forth ‘‘clearly and with par- ticularity.’’ The complaint and the issues iden- tified for hearing did not adequately place the attorney on notice that he had violated the dis- ciplinary rules prohibiting dishonest conduct. A proper charge of dishonesty would have identi- fied conduct constituting violation of C.R.P .C. 4.1(a) (making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person) or 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation); not 8.4(g) (engaging in con- duct violating accepted standards of legal eth- ics). In re Quiat, 979 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1999).