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

February 1, 2026, through April 30, 2026

July 14, 2026

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 February 1, 2026, through April 30, 2026, at the intake stage, Regulation Counsel entered into five diversion agreements involving five separate requests for investigation. LRC approved two diversion agreements involving three 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 February 1, 2026, through April 30, 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;
  • disclosure of confidential client information, implicating Colo. RPC 1.6;
  • trust account issues, implicating Colo. RPC 1.15A through 1.15E;
  • duties owed to clients upon termination of representation and declining or terminating representation, implicating Colo. RPC 1.16;
  • failure to obey a tribunal’s obligations, implicating Colo. RPC 3.4(c);
  • 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 February 1, 2026, through April 30, 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

▶ Respondent was hired to represent the client in a family law case. Respondent did not appear at a status conference under the mistaken belief that respondent’s motion to continue was granted. Respondent did not appear at another hearing under the mistaken belief it was virtual. The court ordered sanctions and attorney fees against respondent. In addition, respondent intended to charge an hourly fee, but the fee agreement mistakenly stated it was a flat fee. Ultimately, respondent converted the fee agreement to the flat fee, but respondent did not provide the amended agreement in writing to the client.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(3), 1.5(a),(f), 1.16(d), and 8.4(d).

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

▶ Respondent made several missteps while representing a client in a dissolution matter. While engaging in negotiations and exchanging redlined drafts of a separation agreement with opposing counsel, respondent inadvertently sent a draft that contained respondent’s client’s comments about the client’s taxes to opposing counsel. At one point during the negotiations, the client asked respondent how to hold the opposing party accountable for alleged violations of their memorandum of understanding, the terms of which were reached at mediation. They discussed this option several times, and respondent believed the matter was dropped. The client later complained that this task was not completed.

Upon termination, respondent failed to provide the client’s entire file, including correspondence with opposing counsel, which the client was incorrectly told was attorney work product that belonged to the firm, not the client. In addition, emails that respondent exchanged with third parties between February and April 2024 were archived in the wrong location, which resulted in them not being provided to the client initially. When providing the client with links to file contents on two occasions, respondent failed to ensure that the links were password protected as the firm’s fee agreement indicates they would be. Respondent later provided the client with additional file materials via a password-protected link, although one email could not be located.

When the client accessed the file, the client discovered an image of text messages between another of respondent’s clients and their spouse regarding a court requirement involving their children’s passports. In responding to the request for investigation underlying the diversion, respondent took the position, based on the advice of counsel, that Colo. RPC 1.4 did not require respondent to notify the other client of the inadvertent disclosure of information related to that representation. When OARC informed respondent’s counsel that it disagreed with that advice, respondent promptly notified the other client in writing of the inadvertent disclosure.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3), 1.6(a), and 1.16(d).

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

▶ Respondent failed to read numerous court orders issued in multiple cases and instead relied on paralegal entries into the firm’s system when filing. This resulted in respondent filing multiple improper Notices of Judgment when in fact no judgment had entered.

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

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

▶ Respondent was hired by a client to amend a will. Respondent failed to diligently respond to requests for information, did not complete the amendment, and took nearly nine months to issue a refund. In a second case, respondent failed to diligently respond to requests for information from the client, failed to respond timely to opposing counsel, did not complete the work respondent was hired to complete, and did not refund the client for several months after the client demanded the refund. Respondent was experiencing numerous personal and emotional problems during the representation of the two clients.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4, 1.15A(a), 1,15A(b), 1.15C(c), 1.16(d).

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including completion of ethics school and trust account school, engagement with a practice mentor, and payment of costs.

Criminal Act

▶ After drinking alcohol with neighbors, respondent was observed driving from respondent’s apartment complex to purchase additional alcohol and return to the apartment complex. Respondent was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence and other charges. Respondent entered a plea to driving while ability impaired (DWAI). Respondent refused testing, so respondent’s blood alcohol concentration was not measured at the time of respondent’s arrest. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction.

Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination. The examiner did not diagnose respondent with an alcohol or substance use disorder but recommended monitored sobriety.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

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

▶ Respondent collided with a semi-truck trailer that was stopped at an intersection. Respondent admits to consuming alcohol before driving. Respondent declined to participate in roadside maneuvers and testing of blood or breath. Respondent pleaded guilty to DWAI as a first offense and was sentenced to 12 months of unsupervised probation with conditions, including two days of jail, useful public service, a substance abuse evaluation, and any recommended treatment. Respondent completed an independent medical examination. The provider diagnosed respondent with a severe substance use disorder. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related conviction.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including compliance with the terms and conditions of respondent’s criminal sentence, alcohol monitoring, abstaining from alcohol and other mood-altering substances, completion of ethics school, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent was pulled over for driving at a slow rate of speed and weaving. Officers reported respondent had bloodshot, watery eyes and the odor of alcohol on respondent’s breath. Respondent admitted to being impaired and having consumed six beers approximately five hours before being stopped. Respondent pleaded guilty to driving under the influence as a third offense and was sentenced to two years of supervised probation with conditions, including jail time, substance monitoring and treatment, and community service. Respondent voluntarily completed an independent medical examination, and the provider diagnosed respondent with a severe substance use disorder. This was respondent’s third alcohol-related driving conviction.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 8.4(b).

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

Private Admonition Summaries

▶ Respondent failed to send a cease-and-desist letter requested by the clients in a timely manner and failed to reasonably communicate with them about the status of the letter and plans for their legal matter.

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

Back to the From the Courts Page