Menu icon Access the Business Officer Magazine menu by clicking or touching here.
Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo, click or touch this logo to return to the homepage Click or touch the Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo to return to the homepage. Search
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel

Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

May 1, 2025, through July 31, 2025

November 1, 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 May 1, 2025, through July 31, 2025, at the intake stage, Regulation Counsel entered into two diversion agreements involving two separate requests for investigation. LRC approved six diversion agreements involving six 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 no private admonitions 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 May 1, 2025, through July 31, 2025, generally involved the following:

  • lack of competence, implicating Colo. RPC 1.1;
  • 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;
  • meritorious claims and contentions, implicating Colo. RPC 3.1;
  • failing to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, implicating Colo. RPC 3.2;
  • fairness to opposing party and counsel, implicating Colo. RPC 3.4;
  • threatening prosecution, implicating Colo. RPC 4.5;
  • 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 May 1, 2025, through July 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.

Lack of Competence

▶ Respondent and client failed to appear at two virtual hearings in November 2024 in connection with a pending domestic relations case for which notice had been appropriately provided. Respondent also failed to appear at two initial status conferences scheduled in April and May of 2024 in unrelated matters before a different judicial officer for which notice had been appropriately provided.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 3.4(a), and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, completion and peer review of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment, and referral to the Colorado Attorney Mentoring Program to explore mentoring options and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent is a solo practitioner. Respondent’s website falsely represented that other attorneys worked at the law firm and exaggerated respondent’s experience and expertise in personal injury law and criminal law. Respondent also represented a client pro bono in a contempt action associated with a replevin matter. Respondent was unable to admit evidence properly on behalf of the client during the contempt hearing due to lack of experience with evidentiary issues and lack of preparation. Respondent became flustered and overwhelmed with anxiety during the hearing, which contributed to the matter being dismissed because none of the elements of contempt had been met.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.1 and 7.1.

Diversion Agreement: Three-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, practice monitor with audit, completion of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program with peer review, continued mental health treatment, continued mentoring relationship with another attorney, and payment of costs.

Neglect of a Matter and/or Failure to Communicate

▶ Respondent filed a forcible entry and detainer complaint on behalf of a property management company client and named a landlord plaintiff who was deceased. Respondent was not aware the landlord was deceased at the time of filing. When respondent learned the landlord was deceased, respondent did not take steps to dismiss or amend the complaint, or otherwise address the complaint’s deficiency. The defendant thus obtained counsel to defend an action that was groundless in light of the plaintiff’s death. Respondent also made representations in the complaint that relied on information from the client that were likely inaccurate. At an eventual hearing on the complaint, respondent dismissed the complaint and apologized to the court and opposing counsel. Respondent also failed to maintain a copy of the fee agreement entered with the property management company client.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.15D(a)(3), 3.1, and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, completion of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program with peer review, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent represented a client in dissolution of marriage proceedings. While respondent was out of the office sick, respondent relied on the non-attorney staff to read and interpret the court’s orders, including the court’s order directing the parties to either consent to a magistrate presiding over the permanent orders hearing or reschedule the hearing. Respondent neither consented to a magistrate nor reset the permanent orders hearing and failed to appear for the permanent orders hearing. Respondent also failed to respond to the court’s show cause order for respondent’s failure to appear.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3 and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, completion of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program with a law practice reviewer, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent represented a criminal defendant who failed to communicate with respondent. When respondent moved to withdraw from the case, respondent revealed confidential client information. Respondent also failed to appear for two court conferences although respondent had not yet been permitted to withdraw from the case.

In a separate appellate representation, respondent failed to schedule a meeting with the client. Respondent failed to respond to the client’s communications and failed to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.6(a).

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including a practice mentor, completion of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment Program, CLE credits (including ethics school), and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent did not diligently ensure work was performed on a client’s matter by another attorney that was tasked to handle the matter, including related to discovery, even though respondent was also responsible for the matter. Moreover, respondent did not timely communicate, or ensure timely communication occurred, about important details and events.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3 and 1.4.

Diversion Agreement: One-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, completion of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment and review by another approved attorney, and payment of costs.

Fees Issues

▶ Respondent created fee agreement templates that were used by respondent’s law firm that allowed for unreasonable fees and did not comply with the rule governing flat fees.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(a), 1.5(g), and 1.5(h).

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

Threatening Prosecution

▶ Respondent entered a civil case as counsel for the plaintiff approximately 10 days before trial. The case involved a property swap agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, who is the defendant’s mother. The defendant asserted that respondent made threats implicating Colo. RPC 4.5(a) during a phone call with him the day before trial. Respondent asserted that during the call, respondent had told the defendant that respondent reasonably believed the defendant’s conduct violated criminal child abuse and sexual assault statutes, and because the defendant faced overwhelming evidence against him in the civil matter, he should stipulate with respondent to simplify things. Before the trial, respondent wrote the defendant an email apologizing for the way respondent spoke with him before their trial.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 4.5(a).

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

Criminal Act

▶ Respondent threw a glass object from respondent’s front porch at a car that was twice perceived to be speeding by respondent’s home. Respondent was charged with criminal mischief, as a class 6 felony. Respondent entered into a criminal diversion program and successfully completed it, resulting in a dismissal of the charge. Because the criminal mischief was felony-level conduct, respondent was required to and did self-report that respondent was charged with a crime.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

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

Private Admonition Summaries

▶ Respondent represented a criminal defendant serving a prison sentence in an ineffective assistance of counsel post-conviction Crim. P. 35(c) motion. Respondent’s flat-fee agreement did not include benchmarks describing to the client how and when the retainer would be earned. Upon respondent’s termination, the client requested a full accounting of his retainer. Respondent provided the full accounting approximately four months after it was requested, thereby failing to provide full accounting promptly.

Respondent got into an argument with another golfer at a golf course and hit the other golfer in the throat. Respondent pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a misdemeanor.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Back to the From the Courts Page