Bindinglaw

CO · rules

C.R.C.P. 242.42

General Provisions

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

(a) Notice. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, notice must be in writing. Notice

must be sent to the last-known mailing address of the recipient, unless the recipient

consents to receiving notice by email. Notice is deemed effective the date notice is placed

in the mail; placed in the custody of a delivery service; or emailed, if the recipient has

consented to notice by email.

(b) Service of Process. When a pleading commencing a proceeding requiring service is

filed under this rule, a lawyer may be served with process by personal service; by mail or

email using the information provided by the lawyer under C.R.C.P. 227; by mail to any

other address the lawyer has provided to the Regulation Counsel; or, if the lawyer is not

admitted in Colorado, by mail or email to the lawyer’s address of registration in any

jurisdiction where the lawyer’s registration is active. Service is deemed effective on the

date that the lawyer is personally served, that the pleading is placed in the mail, or that the

email is sent.

(c) Application of Civil Rules of Procedure. Except as otherwise provided in this rule,

proceedings before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge or a Hearing Board are governed by

the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

(d) Proof of Conviction. Except as otherwise provided in this rule, a court-certified

copy of the judgment of conviction or order showing that a lawyer has been convicted in

that court of a crime, as defined in C.R.C.P. 241, conclusively establishes the conviction

and proves the lawyer’s commission of that crime for purposes of this rule.

(e) Related Litigation.

(1) Substantially Similar Criminal Cases. A disciplinary proceeding that involves

material allegations substantially similar to the material allegations of a criminal prosecution pending against the respondent may, in the discretion of the Regulation Committee or

the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, as applicable, be placed in abeyance until the criminal

prosecution concludes.

(2) Substantially Similar Civil Cases. A disciplinary proceeding that involves material

allegations substantially similar to the material allegations made against the respondent in

pending civil litigation may, in the discretion of the Regulation Committee or the Presiding

Disciplinary Judge, as applicable, be placed in abeyance until the civil litigation concludes.

If the disciplinary proceeding is placed in abeyance and the respondent fails to make all

reasonable efforts to obtain a prompt trial and final disposition of the pending litigation, the

Regulation Counsel may request that the Regulation Committee or the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, as applicable, promptly resume the disciplinary proceeding.

(3) Effect of Favorable Criminal or Civil Disposition. A criminal or civil disposition

favorable to the respondent does not bar disciplinary action against the respondent based

on the same or substantially similar material allegations. Nothing in this section 242.42

precludes a respondent from seeking relief from a final decision under this rule based on a

favorable disposition in a criminal or civil proceeding.

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, ‘‘The Rules of Pro- fessional Conduct: An Equal Opportunity for Ethical Pitfalls’’, see 41 Colo. Law. 71 (October 2012). Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Attorney licensed to practice law in state of Colorado is subject to discipline by Colo- rado supreme court in the event of his convic- tion of a criminal offense in a foreign jurisdic- tion. People v. Swope, 621 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1981). Attorney’s conduct while in office not only resulted in convictions of second degree official misconduct, § 18-8-405, and failure to disclose a conflict of interest, § 18-8-308, but also fla- grantly violated minimal standards of candor and honesty required by attorneys and justified suspension. People v. Tucker, 676 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1983). Attorney pleading guilty to cultivation of marijuana and unlawful possession of a con- trolled substance is subject to discipline. While convicted felon was not trafficking or dealing in illegal substances and was instead engaged in horticultural preservation and stor- ing substance for others, suspension for three years is appropriate penalty. People v. McPhee, 728 P.2d 1292 (Colo. 1986). Accepting illegal drugs for legal services is serious criminal conduct warranting severe sanction even though it does not fit definition of serious crime provided in rule. People v. Davis, 768 P.2d 1227 (Colo. 1989). Failure to report felony conviction in an- other state where crime involved conversion of client funds justifies disbarment. People v. Hedicke, 785 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1990). Attorney’s failure to report felony convic- tion including counts involving proof of intent to defraud is sufficient for disbarment. People v. Brunn, 764 P.2d 1165 (Colo. 1988); People v. Vidakovich, 810 P.2d 1071 (Colo. 1991). Failure to report felony convictions in an- other state for two counts of failure to report income and two counts of filing false income tax returns warrants three-year suspension and payment of costs rather than disbarment in light of numerous mitigating factors. People v. Mandell, 813 P.2d 732 (Colo. 1991). The conduct of an attorney who fails to report a domestic violence conviction sub- stantially reflects adversely on the attorney’s fitness to practice. Because there is no excep- tion to the duty to report based upon mistake and because the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, the proper form of disci- pline is six months’ suspension. In re Hickox, 57 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2002). Failure to report felony conviction in an- other state for mail fraud warrants disbar- ment in absence of mitigating factors and where aggravating factor of a prior disciplin- ary record exists. People v. Bollinger, 859 P.2d 901 (Colo. 1993). Lack of prior disciplinary record insufficient to call for sanction less than disbarment where attorney convicted of bank fraud. People v. Terborg, 848 P.2d 346 (Colo. 1993). Guilty plea followed by deferred judgment was a ‘‘conviction’’ and failure to report war- ranted public censure even though the convic- tion occurred prior to the adoption of a specific definition for the term ‘‘conviction’’ in this sec- tion. People v. Barnthouse, 941 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1997). Bar reinstatement required demonstration of possession of moral and professional qualifications. Where a state attorney had been convicted of failing to file his federal income tax return and making false representations to a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service regarding the filing of income tax returns, and where the attorney was later found to have made a false statement in his application to the Arizona State Bar by answering in the negative an inquiry as to whether he had ever been ques- tioned regarding the violation of any law, he was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for three years, and was required to demonstrate upon application for reinstatement that he possessed moral and professional quali- fications for admission to the bar of this state. People v. Gifford, 199 Colo. 205, 610 P.2d 485 (1980). Bankruptcy fraud is a serious crime as defined by rule. People v. Brown, 841 P.2d 1066 (Colo. 1990). Attorney’s conviction of three counts of sexual assault on a child and three counts of aggravated incest conclusively established where the court notified him it intended to take judicial notice of the conviction and attorney neither responded to the substance of the notice nor denied the conviction occurred. Because of the nature and seriousness of the crimes for which the attorney was convicted, disbarment was appropriate. People v. Schwartz, 890 P.2d 82 (Colo. 1995). Disbarment warranted for attorney con- victed of criminal attempt to commit sexual exploitation of a child, a class 4 felony. People v. Damkar, 908 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1996). Attorney’s violations constituted ‘‘serious crimes’’ as defined in section (e) of this rule where the attorney pleaded guilty to making and altering a false and forged prescription for Phentermine, a controlled substance, in viola- tion of former § 12-22-315, a class 5 felony, and of criminal attempt to obtain a controlled substance by forgery and alteration in violation of § 18-2-101 and former § 12-22-315, a class 6 felony. People v. Moore, 849 P.2d 40 (Colo. 1993). Lack of prior disciplinary record insuffi- cient to call for sanction less than disbarment where attorney convicted of bankruptcy fraud and for conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud and other federal offenses. People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1991). Although attorney had not previously been disciplined, sanction of disbarment was war- ranted where attorney’s felony conviction for possession of a firearm occurred while he was still on probation for a felony conviction for possession of marijuana. People v. Laquey, 862 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1993). Conviction for aiding fugitive to flee war- rants disbarment despite lack of a prior disci- plinary record. People v. Bullock, 882 P.2d 1390 (Colo. 1994). Respondent given two-year suspension for aiding and abetting aliens’ entry into the United States and by advising clients to make misrepresentations for such entry. Such an act generally warrants disbarment, but respondent’s full disclosure during proceedings, expression of remorse, and the fact that a prior offense was remote in time were mitigating factors. Respon- dent also required to discontinue the represen- tation of clients before INS and the Department of Labor. People v. Boyle, 942 P.2d 1199 (Colo. 1997). Disbarment is warranted for driving while impaired, marihuana possession, improperly executing agreement without permission, and failing to perform certain professional duties, despite the lack of a prior record. People v. Gerdes, 891 P.2d 995 (Colo. 1995). Conviction of attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree on a 17-year-old high school student filing clerk working at attorney’s law firm is a serious crime as de- fined by the rule. The conviction together with sexual conduct toward a client warrant disbar- ment. People v. Dawson, 894 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1995). Disbarment warranted for attorney con- victed in Hawaii of second-degree murder. People v. Draizen, 941 P.2d 280 (Colo. 1997). Disbarment warranted for writing nonsufficient funds checks while practicing law during a period of suspension and commit- ting several other disciplinary rules violations. People v. Fager, 938 P.2d 138 (Colo. 1997). Applied in People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Harthun, 195 Colo. 38, 581 P.2d 716 (1978); People v. Harfmann, 638 P.2d 745 (Colo. 1981); People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809 (Colo. 1985); People v. Proffitt, 731 P.2d 1257 (Colo. 1987); People v. Geller, 753 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1988); People v. Cantor, 753 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1988).

Provenance

Source
content.leg.colorado.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-15
Edition
2026-09-15
Content hash
e3012ff2914b5714426ad6d0843e76083ab64da4ce08042a739ea2e926dd62a5
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

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
C.R.C.P. 242.42 — General Provisions · binding.law