Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

August 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025

December 12, 2025

Summaries of diversion agreements and private admonitions are published on a quarterly basis. They are supplied by the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Diversion and Private Admonition Summaries

Diversion is an alternative to discipline. See CRCP 242.17. Pursuant to the rule and depending on the stage of the proceeding, Attorney Regulation Counsel (Regulation Counsel), the Legal Regulation Committee (LRC), the Presiding Disciplinary Judge (PDJ), the hearing board, or the Supreme Court may offer diversion as an alternative to discipline. For example, Regulation Counsel can offer a diversion agreement when the complaint is at the central intake level in the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC). Thereafter, LRC or the PDJ must approve the agreement.

From August 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025, at the intake stage, Regulation Counsel entered into six diversion agreements involving six separate requests for investigation. LRC approved four diversion agreements involving five separate requests for investigation during this time frame. There were no diversion agreements submitted to the PDJ for approval. LRC issued one private admonition during this time frame. The PDJ approved one private admonition during this time frame.

Determining Whether Diversion Is Appropriate

Regulation Counsel reviews the following factors to determine if diversion is appropriate: (1) there is little likelihood that the attorney will harm the public during the period of participation; (2) Regulation Counsel can adequately supervise the conditions of diversion; and (3) the attorney is likely to benefit by participation in the program.

Generally, Regulation Counsel will consider diversion only if the presumptive range of discipline in the particular matter is likely to result in a public censure or less. However, if the attorney has been publicly disciplined in the last three years, the matter will not be diverted under the rule. CRCP 242.17(b)(6). Other factors Regulation Counsel considers may preclude Regulation Counsel from agreeing to diversion. See CRCP 242.17(b).

Purpose of the Diversion Agreement

The purpose of a diversion agreement is to educate and rehabilitate the attorney so that the attorney does not engage in such misconduct in the future. Furthermore, the diversion agreement may also address some of the systemic problems an attorney may be having. For example, if an attorney engaged in minor misconduct (neglect), and the reason for such conduct was poor office management, then one of the conditions of diversion may be a law office management audit, practice monitor, or both. The time period for a diversion agreement is generally no less than one year nor greater than three years.

Conditions of the Diversion Agreement

The type of misconduct dictates the conditions of the diversion agreement. Although each diversion agreement is factually unique and different from other agreements, many times the requirements are similar. Generally, the attorney is required to attend ethics school and/or trust account school conducted by OARC attorneys. An attorney may also be required to fulfill any of the following conditions:

law office audit
practice monitor
practice mentor
financial audit
Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment
restitution
payment of costs
mental health evaluation and treatment
substance abuse testing
attendance at continuing legal education (CLE) courses
any other conditions that would be determined appropriate for the type of misconduct.

After the attorney successfully completes the requirements of the diversion agreement, Regulation Counsel will close its file, and the matter will be expunged pursuant to CRCP 242.43(d). If Regulation Counsel has reason to believe that the attorney has breached the diversion agreement, then Regulation Counsel must follow the steps provided in CRCP 242.17 before an agreement can be revoked.

Types of Misconduct

The types of misconduct resulting in diversion from August 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025, generally involved the following:

lack of diligence, implicating Colo. RPC 1.3;
neglect of a matter and/or failure to communicate, implicating Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.4;
fees issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.5;
confidentiality of information, implicating Colo. RPC 1.6;
conflict of interest, implicating Colo. RPC 1.7;
trust account issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.15A through 1.15E;
declining or terminating representation, implicating Colo. RPC 1.16;
interference with the impartiality and decorum of the tribunal, implicating Colo. RPC 3.5;
supervisory responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants, implicating Colo. RPC 5.3;
communication concerning a lawyer’s services, implicating Colo. RPC 7.1;
committing a criminal act, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(b); and
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(d).

Some cases resulted from personal problems the attorney was experiencing at the time of the misconduct. In those situations, the diversion agreements may include a requirement for a mental health evaluation and, if necessary, testing and counseling to address underlying problems of depression, alcoholism, or other mental health issues that may be affecting the attorney’s ability to practice law.

Diversion Summaries

Below are summaries of some of the diversion agreements that Regulation Counsel determined appropriate for specific types of misconduct from August 1, 2025, through October 31, 2025. The sample gives a general description of the misconduct, the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct implicated, and the corresponding conditions of the diversion agreement.

Neglect of a Matter and/or Failure to Communicate

▶ Respondent’s firm was hired for amending a client’s estate planning document. The client paid a retainer in two separate payments. Respondent deposited the second payment into the firm’s operating account by mistake. The client attempted to communicate with respondent over the course of several months, but respondent did not respond. Respondent did not complete the work. Ultimately, respondent provided the client with a full refund of all fees paid.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3; 1.4(a)(2),(3), and (4); 1.5(a) and (f); 1.15A(a) and (b); and 1.16(d).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent entered appearance in a dissolution of marriage case on behalf of a client through a contract with a legal services organization. Respondent failed to timely submit the client’s responses to the opposing party’s discovery requests. The CFI reported to the court that she had been unsuccessful in scheduling and completing an initial interview with the client. The CFI also reported that the client had not been in contact with respondent in several months. The court held a status conference regarding the CFI’s concerns at which respondent requested to find substitute counsel or withdraw due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Although respondent intended to withdraw, respondent later elected to remain on the case at the client’s request and informed the court of same.

Respondent provided the client’s responses to interrogatories to opposing counsel. Although the client initially cooperated with respondent’s request to maintain communication, she later stopped responding both to respondent and the CFI. Two months later, opposing counsel filed a motion seeking permission for her client to travel out of state with the parties’ minor children. In the conferral paragraph, counsel indicated that respondent failed to respond to repeated attempts to confer about the motion. Respondent also did not submit a response to the motion on the client’s behalf. The court ordered that the client be responsible for opposing counsel’s fees related to filing the motion.

Around this time, respondent discovered that the client appeared to have income well over the legal services program’s eligibility guidelines. While awaiting a response from the program regarding continued representation and in light of the client’s failure to communicate, respondent allowed the case to go dormant and prioritized other matters. Eventually, opposing counsel filed a status report and request for status conference, advising the court of respondent’s failure to respond to her emails regarding the client’s deficient discovery responses and attempting to schedule mediation. Respondent failed to respond to the court clerk’s attempts to schedule a status by email. Ultimately, the court unilaterally scheduled the conference. Although respondent was notified both by email and service of a Notice of Status Conference issued the day prior, neither respondent nor the client appeared. The court again awarded attorney fees to opposing counsel, this time to be paid by respondent, finding that respondent had failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case. Another attorney substituted as counsel for the client approximately a month later.

Since these events, respondent has taken multiple steps to reduce respondent’s caseload, improve respondent’s handling of emails and calendar, and sought assistance with various personal problems that affected respondent’s conduct in this matter. Respondent also paid opposing counsel’s attorney fees as ordered by the court. Respondent has expressed deep remorse for the conduct in the client’s case and recognizes that respondent should have withdrawn from representing the client sooner.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(a), and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, continued mental health treatment, and payment of costs.

Fees Issue

▶ Respondent worked for a debtor’s rights firm that charged unreasonable administrative fees. While respondent handled client matters for the firm, respondent did not have any supervision over customer service representatives who fielded client calls, and once the customer service representatives were enjoined from fielding client calls, the client did not have any way to reach respondent directly. Ultimately, the client fees were refunded and the firm shut down.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(a), 1.4(a)(4), and 5.3.

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school and payment of costs.

Interference With the Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal

▶ Respondent, a junior deputy district attorney, received a text message from a friend who was a prospective juror on a case respondent’s office was prosecuting. The prospective juror expressed annoyance about potentially serving on the jury and indicated a bias against the criminal defendant based on the charges. Respondent responded to the text and encouraged the friend to remain on the jury, saying he could obtain justice by doing so. Respondent reported the text messages to the prosecuting attorneys on the case, and the friend was removed from the jury pool the next day.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.5(a) and (b).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school and payment of costs.

Criminal Act

▶ An officer observed respondent’s vehicle fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Respondent refused to perform voluntary roadside maneuvers. Respondent was placed under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent refused chemical tests. At the detention center, respondent gave a breath sample into a portable breath testing device, and respondent’s blood alcohol content registered at .126. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired and received a 12-month deferred judgment and sentence. Respondent was sentenced to unsupervised probation. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including compliance with the terms of respondent’s criminal sentence, successful completion of ethics school, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent drank beer with colleagues while watching basketball and during dinner before driving home. Another driver on I-70 called in a REDDI report, and a sheriff’s deputy observed respondent weaving within respondent’s lane. After pulling over respondent’s vehicle, the deputy detected the strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage coming from respondent’s mouth. The deputy then conducted field sobriety tests, which respondent did not complete as a sober person would. He arrested respondent for driving under the influence. Respondent submitted to a blood test, which revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.164 g/100 mL. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and was sentenced to 365 days in jail, all of which is suspended; 12 months of probation; alcohol education and therapy as determined by an alcohol evaluation (later determined to be Level II education and Track B enhanced therapy); monitored sobriety; attendance at a MADD panel; 48 hours of community service; and payment of fines and costs. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction. Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination and was not diagnosed with an alcohol or substance use disorder.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

▶ A police officer discovered the front bumper of respondent’s pickup truck in the road along with numerous safety cones from nearby road construction. After tracing the license plate on the bumper to respondent, officers went to respondent’s home and observed respondent pulling into the driveway in the pickup truck. An officer observed the faint odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage coming from either respondent or the cab of respondent’s truck; respondent appeared unaware of the missing bumper. Respondent also had bloodshot, watery eyes and stated that he had had two drinks while celebrating a friend’s new job. After completing voluntary roadside maneuvers, respondent was taken into custody on suspicion of driving under the influence. Respondent refused any chemical testing. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired (DWAI). Respondent had a prior DWAI conviction that occurred 17 years prior and before respondent was admitted to the bar. An independent medical examiner did not diagnose respondent with an alcohol or substance use disorder.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

▶ Respondent was driving when respondent struck a parked car and rolled respondent’s car. Respondent admitted to law enforcement that respondent drank prior to driving. After conducting a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, law enforcement arrested respondent on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). Respondent consented to a blood draw, which showed a blood alcohol level of 0.226. Respondent pleaded guilty to DUI >.2 and was sentenced to 10 days of in-home detention; 12 months of probation; Level II education and 52 hours of therapy; monitored sobriety; attendance at a victim impact panel; terms decided by probation; treatment as recommended by respondent’s probation officer; 48 hours of community service; and payment of fines, fees, and court costs. Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination and was diagnosed with “alcohol use disorder mild in early remission in a controlled environment” and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including compliance with the terms of respondent’s criminal sentence, continued treatment with current mental health providers, alcohol monitoring, successful completion of ethics school, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent was arrested for and charged with felony menacing and second degree assault. Respondent entered an adult diversion program in the criminal justice system, and the matter was dismissed. Respondent timely self-reported to OARC. There was no guilty plea or finding of guilt in the underlying proceedings, and there was no conviction within the rules governing lawyer discipline.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including the successful completion of ethics school and payment of costs.

Private Admonition Summaries

▶ Respondent, an attorney in a district attorney’s office, participated in a telephone call between the victim in a felony case and the defendant, who was in custody and who was represented by counsel. Respondent did so by suggesting to the victim the questions the victim should ask of the defendant. Respondent reported what happened to respondent’s supervisors later that day, and the office promptly made full disclosure regarding the call to the defendant’s counsel. Respondent withdrew from the case, and prosecutors did not use any information gathered during this phone call.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 4.2.

▶ Respondent was found guilty of violating a civil protection order, which is a class 2 misdemeanor under CRS 18-6-803.5(1)(a).

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.4(c) and 8.4(b).

Back to the From the Courts Page