Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

November 1, 2025, through January 31, 2026

March 5, 2026

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), a 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 November 1, 2025, through January 31, 2026, at the intake stage, Regulation Counsel entered into seven diversion agreements involving seven separate requests for investigation. LRC approved four diversion agreements involving four separate requests for investigation during this time frame. There were no diversion agreements submitted to the PDJ for approval. LRC issued two private admonitions during this time frame. The PDJ approved no 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 November 1, 2025, through January 31, 2026, 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;
duties owed to clients upon termination of representation, implicating Colo. RPC 1.16;
trust account issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.15A through 1.15E;
declining or terminating representation, implicating Colo. RPC 1.16;
failure to obey a tribunal’s obligations, implicating Colo. RPC 3.4(c);
supervisory responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants, implicating Colo. RPC 5.3;
committing a criminal act, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(b); and
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, implicating Colo. RPC 8.4(d);
failure to perform judicial and administrative duties with competence and diligence, implicating Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2.5(A).

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 November 1, 2025, through January 31, 2026. 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

▶ In 2025, the client contacted respondent’s firm about possible representation in a landlord-tenant matter. The client spoke with respondent’s assistant, who explained what information the firm would need to start the eviction process. The assistant provided the client with an engagement letter under respondent’s signature, which the client signed. The client paid the firm’s retainer by check one week later. The check was deposited into the firm’s COLTAF account. The assistant emailed the client confirming receipt of the retainer check and stating the assistant would work on the eviction documents the following week. The client attempted to follow up with the assistant by email several days later but did not hear from anyone at the firm again. Respondent was unaware of the case until receipt of the request for investigation from OARC several months later. As for the last activity in the client matter, the firm’s internal notes reflect that the assistant was looking into what length of time should be included in a termination notice prior to commencing an eviction and intended to discuss same with respondent. However, that did not occur. Upon receipt of the request for investigation, respondent sent the client a letter of apology along with a refund of the retainer, which had remained in the firm’s COLTAF account. Respondent also changed the process for incoming landlord-tenant matters to ensure that respondent and the assistant speak about new matters prior to the assistant undertaking the drafting of necessary documents in the cases rather than after.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 5.3.

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 payment of costs.

▶ The client retained respondent in 2024 to address several issues in a domestic relations matter. The client paid a $3,000 retainer to respondent to be billed on an hourly basis. According to respondent’s records, respondent earned the retainer within two months. However, respondent never transferred those funds to respondent’s operating account. Respondent also failed to provide the client with any invoices or billing statements throughout the representation. The following year, respondent indicated to the client that respondent would continue working with opposing counsel to resolve two outstanding issues. However, respondent completed no further work on the matter and failed to respond to the client’s subsequent emails inquiring about the status of the matter.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (4), and 1.15A(a).

▶ Respondent missed court dates in three different cases, leading to one case being dismissed without prejudice. Respondent was hospitalized with various medical conditions and struggling with substance abuse addiction during the missed court dates. Upon being terminated from one case, respondent failed to promptly return client property.

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

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school and trust account school, continuing mental health and substance abuse treatment, substance abuse monitoring, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent represented a defendant in a criminal case. Respondent’s fee agreement called for monthly payments for an indefinite period of time and did not set forth terms of how respondent earned the fee other than the passage of time. Nor did the fee agreement state if it was an hourly or flat fee. There was no hourly rate listed. There was also no total fee listed nor steps to earn the fee. The client hired new counsel to substitute appearance in the case. The new counsel made multiple attempts to have respondent sign a substitution of counsel and obtain the client’s file and information on court deadlines in the case. Respondent signed the substitution of counsel one day after the motion filing deadline in the case and did not inform new counsel of the lapsed motion filing deadline. Respondent thereafter provided emails exchanged with the district attorney to new counsel, but did not provide the client’s file to new counsel or respond to multiple additional attempts made by new counsel to obtain it. Respondent fully refunded the client’s fee after respondent was terminated.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.4, 1.5(a), and 1.16(d).

▶ Respondent is a solo practitioner. In two matters, respondent failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines and procedural obligations due to significant and documented mental health issues. In the first matter, respondent did not engage in required ADR, failed to file a Trial Management Order, and repeatedly did not submit court ordered status reports, resulting in dismissal of the client’s claims and subsequent assessment of attorney fees totaling tens of thousands of dollars, with an additional thousands of dollars assessed following the denial of respondent’s motion to stay. In the second matter, respondent failed to meet discovery obligations and ceased communication with opposing counsel for an extended period, contributing to court intervention and a judicial report to OARC. Respondent was diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder after seeking assistance. Respondent engaged in and continues with treatment to this day.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d).

Diversion Agreement: Three-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, completion and peer review of the Colorado Lawyer Self-Assessment, verification of continued mental health treatment and counseling, and payment of costs.

Fees Issue

▶ A client hired respondent for a criminal case and paid a $3,000 retainer pursuant to the terms of a flat fee agreement. After representation commenced for the first matter, the client signed a second flat fee agreement for a different case with the same terms as the first fee agreement. The client and respondent entered into a third agreement for a third case with the same terms. The third agreement was not memorialized in writing. The respondent did not transfer fees from respondent’s COLTAF account to the operating account in a manner that was consistent with the terms of the fee agreements.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(h) and 1.15A(a).

Diversion Agreement: Eighteen-month diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of ethics school, a financial audit and monitor, and payment of costs.

Criminal Act

▶ Respondent was arrested on charges of domestic violence and driving while ability impaired. Respondent’s spouse called the police and reported that respondent was intoxicated and had assaulted the spouse. The police found respondent in a parked car away from the home. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired and received a deferred sentence. Respondent has complied with all terms of the deferred sentence in the criminal case and the criminal case has been dismissed. Respondent failed to timely report the conviction pursuant to CRCP 242.11. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction. Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination. The provider did not diagnose respondent with an alcohol or substance use disorder.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

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

▶ Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence after a traffic accident. Respondent failed voluntary roadside maneuvers and submitted to a breath test which registered a BAC of .109. Respondent later pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and entered into a deferred judgment with one year unsupervised probation, 48 hours community service, substance abuse evaluation, victim impact panel, and no consumption of alcohol. Respondent failed to timely self-report the deferred judgment.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

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

▶ Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence after being pulled over for a traffic violation. Respondent refused to undergo voluntary roadside maneuvers and refused to submit to a breath or blood test. Respondent later pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and entered into a deferred judgment with one year of unsupervised probation, 24 hours of public service, substance abuse evaluation, a victim impact panel, and no consumption of alcohol. Respondent failed to timely self-report the deferred judgment.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

▶ Respondent pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (first offense) based on the arrest with a BAC of 0.238. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction. Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination. Respondent was diagnosed with mild alcohol use disorder, but monitoring was not recommended at this time.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Private Admonition Summaries

▶ While serving as a magistrate, respondent allowed approximately 15 matters to languish an unreasonable period of time, spanning one to two years, while awaiting orders.

Rules Implicated: Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2.5(A).

▶ Respondent failed to safeguard unearned fees in a trust account and failed to issue a fee agreement that complied with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) and1.5(h).

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.

Back to the From the Courts Page