In January, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted a new Colorado Appellate Rule regarding the process, procedure, and grounds for granting an interlocutory appeal in civil cases.
We’ve talked about Colorado’s problem solving courts here before (here, here and here). But did you know there are now more than fifty operational problem solving courts in sixteen Colorado jurisdictions? The courts are specifically tailored to consider particularized issues, and consist of adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, mental health courts, family/dependency and neglect courts, truancy courts, prostitution drug court, and DWI courts.
The goal is to stress a collaborative, multidisciplinary, problem-solving approach to address the underlying issues of the individuals appearing in court, rather than simply focusing on the immediate legal matter brought before the court. There is close collaboration with the service communities in their jurisdictions, and the results have been proven to show long-term effectiveness. According to the Colorado Judicial Branch, seventy-five percent of drug court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after leaving the program.
If you’re interested in learning more, join us for a CLE program to learn when and how you may use Colorado’s problem solving courts, rather than the traditional court setting, on behalf of your clients.
The CLE seminar, Drug, Sobriety and Mental Health Courts – Colorado’s New Problem Solving Courts, will be held on Thursday, March 31, 2011. It is available in a variety of formats, including live, live webcast, online video, MP3 download, audio CD, and video replay.
Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court approved four amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules changes concern client file retention and publicity statements by attorneys and are effective immediately.
Rules 1.15, which deals with lawyer safeguarding of client property, was amended in sections (j) and (l) to account for the inclusion of new Rule 1.16A. Comment 1 to the rule was also amended.
Rule 1.16A was adopted and outlines the procedures for the retention and maintenance of a client’s file.
Rules 3.6 and 3.8, regarding extrajudicial comments an attorney may make, were also amended. Comments should be avoided that would increase public condemnation of the accused, but statements may be made to protect a client from “the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.”
The red-line rule changes can be reviewed at State Judicial.
Rule 1.15(j), (l) – “Safekeeping Property: Required Accounting Records; Retention of Records; Availability of Records”
Rule 1.16A – “Client File Retention”
Rule 3.6(b), (c) – “Trial Publicity”
Rule 3.8(f) – “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor”
The immigration bill patterned after Arizona’s controversial law that was introduced in the Colorado Senate has failed proceed out of the Senate State, Military & Veterans Affairs Committee.
When we first told you about the bill last month, SB-54 would have allowed police to arrest anyone they had probable cause to believe was an illegal immigrant facing deportation or had been indicted or convicted of aggravated felonies.
On Monday, Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, introduced SB 11-172, the Colorado Civil Union Act, which authorizes any two unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a civil union. The legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are granted under the law to spouses shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union, including the ability to:
- insure a partner, including dependent coverage under life insurance and health insurance policies
- inherit property
- take family leave time
- make medical and end-of-life decisions
- file a claim based on wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium
- receive survivor benefits
- receive public assistance benefits
The same processes that are provided in law for dissolution, legal separation, and declaration of invalidity of a marriage apply to dissolution, legal separation, and declaration of invalidity of a civil union.
No religious official of any denomination or institution is required to certify a civil union in violation of their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. However, they may certify such a union should they choose to do so.