December 12, 2017

Archives for August 2014

Kimberly Karn Appointed to Tenth Judicial District

On Thursday, August 28, 2014, the governor’s office announced his appointment of Kimberly Karn to the district court bench of the Tenth Judicial District in Pueblo. Karn will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Victor Reyes, effective December 31, 2014.

Karn is currently a Deputy Colorado State Public Defender in Pueblo, where she headed the regional office from 2007 through 2012. In addition to her service in Pueblo, Karn has worked at public defender offices in Colorado Springs, Denver, Arapahoe County, and Greeley. She was an attorney in private practice before becoming a public defender, focusing on family law and dependency and neglect. She was also a guardian ad litem. She received both her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Iowa.

Samuel Cassidy Appointed to Archuleta County Court

On Thursday, August 28, 2014, Governor Hickenlooper’s office announced his appointment of Samuel Cassidy to the Archuleta County Court bench. Cassidy will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. James E. Denvir, effective January 13, 2015.

Cassidy currently teaches business law and ethics at DU’s Daniels College of Business. He handles pro bono cases in many practice areas, including criminal, civil litigation, business contracts and formation, and real estate. Prior to teaching at DU, Cassidy was president and CEO of the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, as well as the Jefferson County Economic Development Association. He has also served as Colorado’s Lieutenant Governor, Senate Minority Leader, and a state senator from Senate District 6. Prior to that, he was an attorney in private practice.

 

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/28/2014

On Thursday, August 28, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and 36 unpublished opinions.

People v. Fritz

People v. Gutierrez-Ruiz

People v. Rogers

Sure-Shock Electric v. Diamond Lofts Venture

People v. Martin

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

 

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/28/2014

On Thursday, August 28, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

United States v. Claycomb

Marshall v. Rudek

Kobel v. Lansing Correctional Facility

Rantz v. Hartley

Harrell v. Wilson

United States v. $85,688 in United States Currency

McKay v. Hayes

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Running Past Our Limits Update (Part Five): A Random Idea Gets Scientific

rhodesIn the video I told you about a couple weeks ago, a friend of mine (his name is “Angel Vigil” — no kidding) describes my workout routine as “his own self-invented alternative treatment to keep the nerves and his muscles and everything working as long as he can, and fight the progressive, debilitating nature of MS.”

Angel didn’t know it, but he was summarizing two neurological concepts that underlie what I’m doing. The first is neuroplasticity: our brains rewire themselves when we learn. The second is myelination: if we use those new neural pathways often, our brains coat them with a substance called myelin, which acts as a learning and skill development supercharger.

Developmental molecular biologist John Medina describes neuroplasticity this way in his book Brain Rules:

Eric Kandel is the scientist mostly responsible for figuring out the cellular basis of [the process of how the brain learns]. For it, he shared the Nobel Prize in 2000… Kandel showed that when people learn something, the wiring in their brain changes. He demonstrated that acquiring even simple pieces of information involves the physical alteration of the structure of the neurons participating in the process. Taken broadly, these physical changes result in the functional organization and reorganization of the brain. This is astonishing. The brain is constantly learning things, so the brain is constantly rewiring itself.

Myelination got a huge popular boost from Daniel Coyle’s 2009 book The Talent Code. As the Amazon book blurb says:

Drawing on cutting-edge neurology and firsthand research gathered on journeys to nine of the world’s talent hotbeds—from the baseball fields of the Caribbean to a classical-music academy in upstate New York—Coyle identifies the three key elements that will allow you to develop your gifts and optimize your performance in sports, art, music, math, or just about anything.

These three elements work together within your brain to form myelin, a microscopic neural substance that adds vast amounts of speed and accuracy to your movements and thoughts. Scientists have discovered that myelin might just be the holy grail: the foundation of all forms of greatness, from Michelangelo’s to Michael Jordan’s. The good news about myelin is that it isn’t fixed at birth; to the contrary, it grows, and like anything that grows, it can be cultivated and nourished.

Put neuroplasticity and myelination together, and you’ve got brain flubber. Both are at work in our brains all the time, whether we know it or not. My approach is to harness them consciously and intentionally. Technically, what I’m after is re-myelination — when damaged neural pathways get rebuilt. I need that because MS has a destructive effect on — you guessed it — myelin. Therefore, in neuroscience terms, my exercise routine is an attempt to use neuroplasticity and re-myelination to restore my MS-damaged neuro-pathways.

Just like Angel said.

I didn’t know any of this three years ago when I began my “self-invented alternative treatment.” I just had an idea. Turns out I got the idea about the time neuroscientists were hot on the myelin trail. Apparently I somehow got on somebody’s memo routing list.

Now that I do know about these things, I have a new goal in life: to become a lab rat.

More on that next time. 

Seven years ago, Kevin Rhodes left his law practice to start a creative venture. His reflections on what happened next appear in an article about law career exit strategies in the August issue of The Colorado Lawyer (here’s the introduction, and here’s the article). His new ebook, Life Beyond Reason: A Memoir of Mania, chronicles his misadventures and lessons learned, and is available as a FREE download at iTunes, Barnes & Noble, Scribd, or wherever else you normally get ebooks. Or follow this link to the distributor’s page, where it’s available as a FREE download in all formats — phone, Kindle, as a PDF, etc. You can email Kevin at kevin@rhodeslaw.com.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/27/2014

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Lovern v. Dorscheid

Jaramillo v. Colvin

Bushyhead v. Wade

United States v. McGuire

United States v. Garcia

Reed v. Heimgartner

Chen v. Dillard Store Services, Inc.

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

All Are Welcome at Denver Lawyers’ Arts & Literature Reception on September 10

Main-Photo

The winners of the The Docket’s Third Annual Arts & Literature Contest have been announced, and a reception will be held on September 10, 2014, in their recognition and to honor all entrants. This year’s winners are Barry Bartel (photography and sculpture), Joel Sayres (fiction), Ilona Dotterrer (nonfiction), Erin Agee (poetry), and Brett Godfrey (painting). Their works are featured in the September 2014 issue of The Docket.

Everyone is welcome to attend the reception and enjoy complimentary drinks and appetizers at the DBA offices on September 10, 2014 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. RSVP by September 5 to lunches@cobar.org, or register online here.

Civil Access Pilot Project Extended to June 30, 2015

Chief Justice Directive 11-02 was amended in July to extend the period for the Civil Access Pilot Project until June 30, 2015. In June 2013, the project was extended to December 31, 2014. The court extended the pilot project for an additional six months in order to eliminate confusion, give the court time to determine whether the project achieved its stated goals, and consider what changes should be made to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, if any.

The Civil Access Pilot Project was developed in order to streamline the litigation process by identifying and narrowing issues at the earliest stage of litigation, require active ongoing case management by a single judge, and attempt to keep litigation costs proportionate to the issues being litigated. It applies to certain business actions, including claims for breach of contract, business tort actions, actions regarding the application of the Uniform Commercial Code, actions involving commercial real property, private actions for securities fraud, actions involving intellectual property, and more.

For CJD 11-02 regarding the Civil Access Pilot Project, click here. For all the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

Tenth Circuit: Doctors who Instituted Medical Hold to Prevent Child’s Discharge Not Entitled to Absolute Immunity

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Thomas v. Kaven on Tuesday, August 26, 2014.

M.T., the minor daughter of plaintiffs Legina and Todd Thomas, was placed in a mental health center after revealing suicidal ideation to a police officer who was interviewing her after her parents learned she may have been sexually assaulted. While in the hospital, M.T.’s doctors diagnosed her with a panoply of psychiatric disorders and wanted to start psychotropic medicine. Plaintiffs refused, concerned that the diagnoses were inaccurate and worried about serious side effects. The doctors reported Plaintiffs to the New Mexico Child, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) for their resistance to M.T.’s treatment. After several weeks, Plaintiffs attempted to remove M.T. from the hospital, and the doctors instituted a medical hold to prevent Plaintiffs from removing M.T. The doctors and hospital initiated court proceedings five days later, but discharged M.T. after holding her for seven days because her insurance would no longer authorize treatment. The doctors again reported Plaintiffs to CYFD for medical neglect based on their decision not to medicate their child. M.T. returned to school and nothing came of the report.

Plaintiffs sued, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their child’s medical care and right to familial association. The defendant doctors asserted absolute and qualified immunity and moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because their complaint alleged sufficient facts to sustain their claims of violations of their right to direct their child’s medical care and right to familial association.

The Tenth Circuit clarified that Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for seeking a judicial order regarding M.T.’s care. Defendants’ decision to prevent M.T.’s discharge was based on a medical hold that did not invoke the judicial process. The Tenth Circuit next evaluated whether dismissal was appropriate based on qualified immunity, which is usually applied at the summary judgment stage rather than in a motion to dismiss.

As to Plaintiffs’ claims that their right to direct their child’s medical care was violated, the Tenth Circuit disagreed, noting that Plaintiffs’ claim rested on Defendants’ report to CYFD, and since nothing ever came of the report, mere allegations were not enough to violate their parental rights. However, as to Plaintiffs’ claim of violation of the right to familial association, the Tenth Circuit determined Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to illustrate a violation. The Tenth Circuit could not tell from the record whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and remanded for this determination.

The district court’s dismissal was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/26/2014

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

United States v. Reyes-Gonzales

Lewis v. Clark

United States v. Claycomb

United States v. Gruver

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Kevin Rhodes—Exit Strategies Galore

Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the fourth part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction,click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, click here for an interview with Roxanne Jensen, and stay tuned for more interviews.

Sandgrund-RhodesBy Ronald M. Sandgrund, Esq., InQ.

InQ.: Kevin, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted do as a career?

Kevin: When I was 31, I entered my final year of a JD/MBA program. I had this idea I wouldn’t practice law, but that I would use the joint degree in business. However, the market for newly minted MBAs had dried up, while the market for new lawyer hires was robust, so I took the path of least resistance and joined a law firm. I was about 32 when I first felt that practicing law was the career for me. I practiced law full-time for twenty-two years, and I had a hand in it for another six years after that—once a lawyer always a lawyer.

InQ.: How old were you when you first gave serious thought to how to exit the full-time practice of law?

Kevin: I’ve made three exits from the practice.

InQ.: Three! Many people don’t have the time or energy for even one. Tell me more.

Kevin: The first was a little over a year after I started, at age 33. The work was new and intellectually stimulating, but the realities of law firm life were a shock. At the time, I also felt tugged-at by a religious renewal experience. All this was personally disorienting. I needed space, so I quit. During the following year, I drifted for a few months, and then took a job as a road warrior management consultant with a Big 4 accounting firm. I was hired to work in corporate finance, but that market vanished with the crash of 1987, and I was shifted to accounting projects I knew nothing about and had no interest in. At the end of the year, I really couldn’t think of what else to do, so I hung out my shingle.

The second exit was eight years later, at age 40. I’d spent the years since my initial exit first as a solo, then with a large firm, and then back as a solo. This time, I left to respond to what I considered to be a call into the ministry. I transferred the practice to another lawyer. A year-and-a-half later, it was obvious ministry wasn’t where I belonged. I had been working part-time for a large firm. They took on a giant family business succession case and needed to staff up, so they made me an offer I couldn’t refuse and I went back to full-time. The first month back I billed 250 hours.

The third exit was fourteen years later at age 54. I’d gotten my religious zealot days out of my system, and I’d made peace with the practice, first in a large firm and then founding a small boutique estate planning and business succession firm of my own. I’d just finished my best year ever in terms of both money and satisfying work. I’d brought in a partner who was handling the regular caseload, and I was working on larger, more complex cases, often co-counseling with lawyers from large firms. I also was putting three kids through college. On the surface, life was good.

But something was rotten in Denmark. Despite external success, on the inside I was becoming increasingly angry and cynical. I was alarmed at my state of mind. My wife and I talked about it, and I vowed to stop being such a pain. Then, two days later, I was in the hospital after a nasty ski accident that laid me up for a couple months. About the time I was rehabbed, I had a “creative visitation” one afternoon, and was suddenly and unexpectedly inspired to produce an all-original multimedia stage spectacle.

InQ.: Did they check you for a head injury while you were in the hospital?

Kevin: (smiling) As a matter of fact they did! Apparently not enough! I realize all this sounds crazy, and in fact maybe it was. Suddenly getting inspired to do a show is maybe no big deal if you’re in showbiz, but I wasn’t. I was a lawyer. I had no background in theater. The whole thing was nuts, and I went nuts over it.

InQ.: So, when did you first make concrete plans to finally and truly exit the practice of law?

Kevin: Well, first I spent a couple months developing the show and trying to find someone to produce it, but when no one would, I decided to do it myself. Soon, I was working full-time on it. It was not fair to let my law partner carry the whole practice load, so I proposed to her that she buy me out, and she agreed. I believe our total time framework for the transition and buyout was maybe three years. I was 54 and I decided, finally, to stop being a lawyer.

InQ.: Did you develop any sort of plan as far as how to accomplish this goal?

Kevin: I had a substantial business succession law practice. I had done that kind of work for scores of clients, I had written about it, and I given talks and seminars for clients and other professionals. I knew exactly what to do, and my law partner and I put our deal in writing. It was all very congenial, efficient, professional, and thorough, and the plan went together in short order. Little did I know, though, that I was about to get a whole new education in business succession planning: there are so many non-rational, non-legal issues involved—emotions, sense of identity, motivations, etcetera. I believed I was better than most at addressing these “soft” issues, but my personal experience was headed for territory with which I was unfamiliar and that I hadn’t personally experienced before—a whole new psychological realm. I never really appreciated ahead of time the enormity of the task.

InQ.: Hmm, so was Abraham Lincoln right—”He who represents himself has a fool for a client”?

Kevin: (smiling) Guilty as charged.

InQ.: How long did it actually take you to implement your exit strategy?

Kevin: After I took my last partner draw (more than normal, as a sort of down payment), there wasn’t much left to do. My partner was in charge, and I was already mostly disengaged from the practice. We agreed I would be available as needed, which turned out to be not very much. This all happened within the space of maybe a few months.

InQ.: At any point in the process of implementing your plan, did you think about reversing course?

Kevin: It was only a matter of months before my former partner was struggling to make the payments on the buyout note. She approached me and said, “It’s just not working and I can’t sleep at night.” It was clear to me that our plan had fallen victim to a set of false assumptions. We talked and strategized, had a lot of heart-to-heart conversations. One of my proposed solutions would have negated my exit and her buyout, and brought me back into the practice. After a few more months, we reversed the course of our deal, but not my exit from the practice. We agreed that the large draw I’d taken plus the amounts she’d paid on the promissory note were enough. We revised our buyout contract to lower the price and renegotiated the note so the purchase price was paid in full. That cleaned up the buyout, but left me without an income when I was already hemorrhaging cash developing the show. There were of course lots of other ways we could have handled it, but frankly, I didn’t care enough to reach for them. By the time this was happening, we had completed a successful sneak preview event of the show, and I was pushing toward a premier later that year. My ties to the law practice were a distraction, so I cut them.

InQ.: And then?

Kevin: As it turned out, a few months after we renegotiated our deal, the show crashed and burned, and took most of my life’s savings with it. I grieved over the show’s demise for a month or so, and then began working on starting up a new solo practice from scratch. I wanted to honor the exit I’d made, and didn’t want to compete with my former practice, which had stabilized and returned to profitability. I talked to my former partner about my plans, and it was clear I wasn’t needed or wanted back.

InQ.: And then?

Kevin: A month later, that effort was cut short by a second accident, with injuries much worse than the first. I would be laid up for several more months. It was the perfect storm—personally, professionally, financially—you name it.

InQ.: Holy mackerel! It sounds like a visit to purgatory.

Kevin: That was five-and-a-half years ago. Since then, I periodically tested the waters regarding a return to the practice. In the meantime, my new life outside law kept morphing, and I kept following it, to see where it might lead.

InQ.: A lack of imagination, worries about what one will do, and financial concerns appear to be thebiggest obstacles to escaping the full-time practice of the law. What do you think?

Kevin: Not being able to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time was never a factor: after my first two exits, I thought I was a lifer, and I hadn’t considered getting out again until the moment the show seized me so completely that I just had to do it. I never had time to imagine life after law; I just dove into it. As far as being afraid not to fill the time, again, this was never a factor. Once I started the show, it was all-consuming, and I figured I’d be in showbiz the rest of my life. And, as far as being afraid of not having enough money later in life, this also was never a factor, although in hindsight it’s easy to say it should have been! But, at the time, I really never considered it.

InQ.: How did your significant other react during your odyssey?

Kevin: My wife watched me act like a man possessed those first two or three months as I was moving into show production, and then she sat me down one day and said, “I don’t really understand what’s come over you, but I like the new person you’ve become. You’re so much happier! This is obviously going to be one amazing adventure, and I don’t want to be left out of it. So, I’m all the way in with you.” Amazing, isn’t it, to think of her saying that? Since then, we’ve traveled every inch of this long, strange trip together. She’s had immeasurable influence on my plans. There’s just too much here to tell!

InQ.: Did any tensions arise between you and others, including your children, co-workers, and significant other, as a result of retreating from the full-time practice of law? How did you manage them?

Kevin: There were several tensions of this nature, but I didn’t “manage” any of them. I did my best; sometimes it was good enough, sometimes it wasn’t. I had the best intentions, but you can’t do what I did and not leave some people behind. There was hurt, for me and others. I definitely stressed my law partner and my long-time administrative assistant by disengaging from the practice and then getting out the way I did. I did lose some friendships with clients who had become friends and with some fellow professionals. My path was at first a curiosity, and even a cause of envy, but after a while I became irrelevant. They moved on, and so did I. My wife was also stressed at first, but then she jumped in with both feet. My kids, on the other hand, loved what I was doing. It was exciting to have a dad who was bucking the system and going for it in a big way, and they were proud of me. As for my extended family, frankly we didn’t tell them much—not out of deception, but self-preservation. They came to know in time. They’ve never understood things the way we’ve seen them. Not really.

InQ.: What sort of activities have you embraced to fill the time you formerly devoted to the full-time practice of law, and how satisfying have those activities been?

Kevin: Even though the show bombed, I wanted to go deeper into expressing its life-affirming message. I tried doing this via screenwriting for a couple of years, but finally decided that maybe I’m not the creative genius I’d like to be. Mostly, I’ve invested a lot of self-examination, research, reading, conversations, and other investigations into trying to understand what happened to me during my exit from the practice, and what that means not just for me but also for all those lawyers out there for whom the practice of law has become an empty, unhappy, or even toxic place. Maybe they’d like to enhance their law careers, or maybe they’d like to get out. I wanted to know if what I’ve learned might help them.

InQ.: What did you do to turn those thoughts into action?

Kevin: I started keeping a journal, which eventually became a book (Life Beyond Reason: A Memoir of Mania, just released, and available on Amazon) about my misadventures and lessons learned regarding the dynamics of change, creativity, personal transformation, following our dreams, etcetera. I write a blog on those topics for the CBA, and have also designed and conducted several workshops on those topics for lawyer, law student, and non-lawyer audiences.

InQ.: Anything else?

Kevin: Besides the workshops and blogging, I’m now a mentor through the Colorado Supreme Court’s CAMP initiative, have done some career and law practice coaching, and have conducted workshops for the CBA’s Job Search and Career Transitions Support Group and at Denver Law. This was one of the reasons I re-hung my shingle last year. I thought that, by returning to “insider” status, I might have a more credible voice in the profession. All of those activities have been highly satisfying.

InQ.: You re-hung your shingle? Going for the record for exit strategies are we? Tell me, during your previous three exits, what mistakes, if any do you feel you made?

Kevin: I’ve reached the point in my life where I don’t think of things as mistakes. It’s always tempting to look backward with regret, and calling things “mistakes” fuels that temptation, so I try to avoid it. On the other hand, I will say that if acting unreasonably is a mistake, then I made countless mistakes in how I went about leaving the practice. And, if having blind spots is also a mistake, then I’ve made even more. As for acting unreasonably, I’ll admit that making a sudden jump from a successful long-term law practice into the unknown waters of showbiz was unreasonable, by any measure. It wasn’t a reasonable thing to do when I did it, and it’s still not reasonable in the bright light of hindsight. The list of my lack of qualifications was so long, it wasn’t even embarrassing—it was just insane.

InQ.: What, if anything, would you do differently?

Kevin: It’s tempting to say, “Well, I wouldn’t ruin my career by doing something so crazy.” or “I would have gotten coaching help.” or “I should have seen a shrink.” But really, the truth is, I can’t say what I would do differently. So, you go forward, because to look backward is just more crazy-making. As a friend of mine says, “The trouble with blind spots is you can’t see them.”

InQ.: What assumptions did you make that turned out to be mostly or wholly incorrect?

Kevin: For one thing, I assumed the practice would go humming along as robustly after I left as it had while I was still fully engaged in it. As a result, I totally underestimated how my absence would affect cash flow. Without me present, there just wasn’t as much work generated. At its height in the late ’90s, the firm had been bigger, but by the time I left, it was a two-lawyer operation.

InQ.: How happy were you when practicing law full-time? How happy are you now?

Kevin: After all this, one thing that’s changed for me is that I have a different perspective on the topic of happiness than I ever did before. For the first decade or so of my law career, my attitude was often something like, “The practice of law is making me unhappy,” or “I am unhappy practicing law.”

InQ.: And now?

Kevin: Now, I think, “I was an unhappy person for much of the time I was practicing law.” I think you can see the difference. The former put the problem outside me; the latter sees the problem looking back at me from the mirror. Then, in the second and into the third decades of my law career, it was easy for me to look at the external trappings of my practice success and think they equated with happiness; that is, this outlook locates happiness in external circumstances. It says, “Gee, that guy is successful. He must be happy.” The fallacy is obvious when you say it that bluntly, but that was another of my blind spots. Now, simply put, I’ve come to believe that happiness is mostly an inside job; you don’t get it by reference to externals, but by finding it within.

InQ.: In retrospect, did you give financial considerations too much, too little, or just the right amount of weight?

Kevin: I think it would be fair to say that, measured on the scale of reasonable behavior, as I’ve described previously, I blew the financial issues royally. Measured on the scale of things like inspiration and personal awakening and awareness, you get a whole different read on it. My exit from the law—

InQ.: Exits?

Kevin: —exits from the law, ended up costing me everything except my family and closest friends. What did I get in return? Well, for starters, I felt I got my soul back, plus a whole new understanding and outlook on life, plus new relationships with my family and old friends, and a whole bunch of new friends to boot. And like I said, that’s just for starters.

InQ.: How, if at all, did having children affect your decision-making process?

Kevin: Not at all.

Comment Period Open for Proposed Changes to 10th Circuit Local Rules

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has proposed changes to its local rules, effective January 1, 2015. From August 22 through October 20, the comment period for these proposed changes will be open to all interested parties. Comments are welcome on all rules, but practitioners are encouraged to carefully review the appendix requirement in counseled civil cases and criminal cases where there is retained counsel.

In addition to the changes to the 10th Circuit Local Rules, a change to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure regarding bankruptcy appeals will take effect December 1, 2014. The change addresses three areas: (1) it has been updated to include the latest numeric revisions to the bankruptcy rules; (2) language has been changed to address electronic records; and (3) references have been added to discretionary bankruptcy appeals.

The changes to Fed. R. App. P. 6 and the 10th Circuit Local Rules are available in a clean version and a redline. Comments may be submitted to the clerk of the 10th Circuit via email at 10th_Circuit_Clerk@ca10.uscourts.gov. Interested parties are welcome to call the clerk’s office with questions at (303) 844-3157.