C.R.C.P. 242.33

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 Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Recommendation of grievance commit- tee’s hearing panel is advisory only, and it is incumbent upon the supreme court to exercise its independent judgment, taking into consider- ation the facts, circumstances, and background of the lawyer, to increase or decrease the rec- ommended sanction. People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982). While the supreme court has always given the recommendation for discipline by the griev- ance committee great weight, the court reserves the right to exercise our independent judgment in arriving at the proper level of discipline. People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638 (Colo. 1986). Under this rule, the supreme court may accept the recommendation of the grievance committee or may impose such other discipline as may be proper under the circumstances. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). The selection of discipline to be imposed is ultimately a decision to be made by the supreme court after considering the appropriate factors and the purposes to be served by disciplinary sanctions. People v. Vigil, 779 P.2d 372 (Colo. 1989). As part of its constitutional and inherent powers, the supreme court has exclusive ju- risdiction over lawyers, and possesses the ple- nary authority to regulate and supervise the practice of law in Colorado. In re Caldwell, 50 P.3d 897 (Colo. 2002); Matter of Greene, 2013 CO 29, 302 P.3d 690. This rule does not specifically authorize the appellate review of an order granting summary judgment, but that authority is re- served in C.R.C.P. 251.1(d). Matter of Greene, 2013 CO 29, 302 P.3d 690. The primary purpose of lawyer regulation proceedings is to protect the public, not to pun- ish the offending lawyer. In re Caldwell, 50 P.3d 897 (Colo. 2002). Factual findings of grievance committee are binding on the supreme court, unless the supreme court, after considering the record as a whole, concludes that the findings are clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evi- dence. People v. Garnett, 725 P.2d 1149 (Colo. 1986) (apparently overruling People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982)). Supreme court is bound by the factual findings of the hearing board unless those findings are clearly erroneous and not sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record. Court reviews questions of law de novo as in any appeal. In re Quiat, 979 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1999); In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008). Where hearing board determined that an allegation of the complaint was not proven by clear and convincing evidence because it believed respondent’s explanation of his ac- tions rather than attorney regulation coun- sel’s allegations, supreme court could not con- clude, as a matter of law, that no reasonable fact finder could have made that determination. In re Rosen, 198 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2008). An attorney may file exceptions to the findings of the grievance committee. People v. Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971). Exceptions to the report of the grievance committee will be ordered stricken where the attorney fails to support them by a reporter’s transcript or such portions thereof as would be necessary to enable the court to pass upon the exceptions. People v. V an Nocker, 176 Colo. 354, 490 P.2d 697 (1971). If an attorney files exceptions, he should also provide a reporter’s transcript to enable the supreme court to pass on the exceptions. People v. Murphy, 174 Colo. 182, 483 P.2d 224 (1971). Respondent’s exceptions stricken for fail- ure to designate record as required by subsec- tion (b)(4) of this rule. People v. Lutz, 897 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1995). There is no evaluation of evidence on re- view. In determining whether the board’s find- ings are supported by substantial evidence, it is not within the province of the supreme court to measure the weight of the evidence or to re- solve the credibility of witnesses. People v. Distel, 759 P.2d 654 (Colo. 1988).