Disciplinary Case Summaries for Matters Resulting in Diversion and Private Admonition

May 1, 2026, through July 31, 2026

October 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 May 1, 2026, through July 31, 2026, at the intake stage, Regulation Counsel entered into 10 diversion agreements involving 11 separate requests for investigation. LRC approved one diversion agreement involving one request for investigation during this time frame. No diversion agreements were 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, 2026, through July 31, 2026, 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;
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;
bringing a meritorious claim and contention, implicating Colo. RPC 3.1;
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, 2026, through July 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 one matter, respondent accepted a $3,000 retainer that was not deposited into respondent’s trust account. In the fee agreement, respondent agreed to participate in fee arbitration if there was a dispute regarding fees. Respondent’s client disputed respondent’s fees and submitted the dispute to fee arbitration, but respondent did not respond and the arbitration was closed. Respondent mistakenly billed more than respondent’s hourly rate for five hours. In a second matter, respondent mistakenly failed to timely file pleadings on behalf of the client. Respondent did not timely respond to the client’s questions when respondent moved to withdraw. In both matters, respondent did not timely invoice clients and did not adequately communicate the time billed for work performed. Respondent made calculation errors on the invoices generated in both matters. Respondent is in a new position and will no longer handle client funds.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.5(a), 1.15A(a), and 1.16(d).

Diversion Agreement: Two-year diversion agreement with conditions, including successful completion of trust account school, peer-reviewed self-assessment reviewed by OARC-approved counsel, fee arbitration, and payment of costs.

▶ Respondent entered a limited appearance representation on behalf of a client through respondent’s contract with an outside law firm. Respondent failed to attend an initial status conference and a subsequent status conference, leading the court to issue a case management order notifying respondent that if respondent did not appear, the court would consider entering sanctions against respondent personally. Respondent did not complete the scope of representation. Respondent canceled the contract with the outside law firm in an effort to forego fees and facilitate a refund to the client.

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

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

Fees Issue

▶ In 2023, the client retained respondent concerning a real estate dispute in Colorado. Respondent presented a fee agreement that provided respondent would charge a “hybrid hourly/flat rate” of $20,000. The fee agreement did not clarify how respondent would earn that hybrid/flat rate, but respondent implemented it as though it were a capped-rate fee. Respondent, however, charged the client a total of $23,400.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(a) and (b).

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

▶ Respondent was hired for client’s criminal appellate matter. Respondent charged a flat fee of $5,000, which respondent was paid over four months. The engagement agreement stated that the fee was earned upon execution. Respondent did not place any of these funds in the client trust account. Instead, respondent placed all funds in the operating account upon receipt. Ultimately, respondent refunded half of the amount paid.

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

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

▶ Respondent represented two clients in their efforts to obtain Italian citizenship. Respondent’s engagement letters for legal services provided for a fixed (or flat) legal fee. Both letters stated that the legal fee would be “earned at the signing,” and they did not include the amount to be earned upon the completion of specified tasks or the occurrence of specified events. In consultation with counsel, respondent has since amended both engagement letters to address the lack of benchmarks. In another client matter, respondent erroneously double-billed the client for an additional $300 charge, which was deposited into respondent’s COLTAF account. However, respondent did not become aware of the duplicate charge or refund it to the client until much later.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 1.5(h) and 1.15C(c).

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

Bringing a Meritorious Claim and Contention

▶ Respondent, who was inexperienced as a criminal defense attorney at the time, made a false or misleading statement to the court in connection with a written motion to suppress evidence and a motion seeking dismissal of charges against respondent’s client. During a subsequent hearing on the motions, respondent ultimately clarified and corrected the prior statement of fact.

Rules Implicated: Colo. RPC 3.1 and 8.4(c).

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

Criminal Act

▶ Respondent was arrested on suspicion of DUI after being contacted by police. Respondent later pleaded guilty to public intoxication and was sentenced to 90 days in jail, all suspended; no consumption of alcohol; alcohol/substance abuse evaluation; and fines. This was respondent’s first alcohol-related offense.