May 18, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for business law

Coach’s Corner: Do You Have What It Takes to Start a Firm?

May 16, 2012 By Leave a Comment

I have often argued that that law schools do little to prepare graduates for dealing with the business of law — finance, practice management, client relations — that determines practice success. That puts the onus on new lawyers to do the preparation themselves, especially if they are starting a practice on their own.

Solo or small-firm lawyers need all the traits of an entrepreneur: motivation, acceptance of risk, resiliency, commitment, persistence. You may think you have these traits in abundance, but what do they really mean on a personal level if you want to run your own firm?

A new resource enables lawyers to get some definitive answers for themselves. The U.S. Small Business Administration now offers a self-test, aimed at anyone interested in starting a small business.

The test will prompt you with questions and assist you in evaluating skills, characteristics and experience as they relate to your potential as an entrepreneur. Responses are scored automatically to create an assessment profile for how prepared you are to run your own business. And make no mistake: A law firm is a business.

These are just some of the key questions; consider for a moment how they relate to your own personal knowledge and inclinations:

  • Do you have support for your business from family and friends?
  • Have you ever taken a course or seminar designed to teach you how to start and manage a small business?
  • Have you discussed your business idea, business plan or proposed business with a business coach or counselor?
  • Do you have enough confidence in yourself and your abilities to sustain yourself in business if or when things get tough?
  • Are you prepared, if needed, to temporarily lower your standard of living until your business is firmly established?
  • Do you have a business plan for the business you are planning to start?
  • Do you know if your business will require a special license or permit and how to obtain it?
  • Do you know where to find demographic data and information about your customers?
  • Do you know how to compute the financial “break-even point” for your business?

If there is one running theme here, it’s that the lawyer starting a firm must make a commitment to success. Expressing success in relative terms such as “more revenue” or “greater satisfaction” sets a subjective standard that is difficult to achieve.

The truly successful person wants and needs a target. To successfully start a firm, know what you want to do, who you want to be and how you will provide your clients with value.

Ask a coach or other independent person with knowledge of the profession, its requirements and the requisite skills of entrepreneurship. Ask this person to react to your analysis of your strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Although such an analysis will be at least somewhat subjective, it is essential to help you understand if you have what it takes to start your own firm.

Ed Poll is a nationally recognized coach, law firm management consultant, and author who has coached and consulted with lawyers and law firms in strategic planning, profitability analysis, and practice development for over twenty years. Ed has practiced law on all sides of the table and he now helps attorneys and law firms increase their profitability and peace of mind. He writes a syndicated legal column, Coach’s Corner, where this post originally appeared on March 22, 2012.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: , , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Sale of Shares of Joint Venture Constituted Investment Contract Under the Colorado Securities Act and Thus Were Required to be Registered with Division of Securities

May 15, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Joseph, Colorado Securities Commissioner v. Meika Corporation on May 10, 2012.

Colorado Securities Act—Cease and Desist Order.

Respondents Mieka Corporation, Daro Blankenship, and Stephen Romo appealed the order prohibiting them from committing any violation of the Colorado Securities Act (CSA), CRS §§ 11-51-101 to -908, in connection with the offer and sale of any security in or from the State of Colorado. The judgment was affirmed.

The Colorado Division of Securities (Division) issued an order directing respondents to show cause why a final order should not be entered against them in conjunction with the alleged sale of securities. The order alleged respondents had violated provisions of the CSA by offering for sale interests in a joint venture to develop an oil and gas lease in Pennsylvania (Joint Venture).

The Division, through a hearing panel (Panel), issued a detailed opinion concluding that the presented evidence established that the interests in the Joint Venture were securities under the CSA and that there had been an offer and sale of such security interests. Because those securities had not been registered with the Division, the Panel recommended that the Colorado Securities Commissioner (Commissioner) issue a cease and desist order against respondents to enjoin them from violating the CSA.

In April 2011, the Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Panel and made two additional conclusions of law: (1) that “the strong presumption that general partnerships are not securities as found in the Williamson case [Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981)] is not the law under the Colorado Securities Act”; and (2) that respondent Romo had acted as an unlicensed broker-dealer or sales representative, in violation of CRS § 11-51-401(2). These additional conclusions were appealed by respondents.

Respondents argued that the conclusion of the Panel and the Commissioner that the Joint Venture interests were unregistered securities because they were interests in an investment contract was based on an erroneous view of the law or was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. The Court of Appeals declined to address the first contention, because the Panel and the Commissioner found that the Joint Venture interests were securities on grounds that did not turn on the legal argument made by respondents. The Court then found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Panel and the Commissioner. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , ,

HB 12-1358: Making Transfers from the Medical Marijuana Cash Fund to the Departments of Revenue and Public Health and Environment

May 11, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On April 30, 2012, Rep. Tom Massey and Sen. Irene Aguilar introduced HB 12-1358 – Concerning Funding Issues Related to Medical Marijuana, and, In Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill transfers $7.7 million from the medical marijuana program cash fund to the department of revenue for use in the medical marijuana licensing program for fiscal years 2011-12 through 2014-15. Of the $7.7 million, $2 million will be held in a reserve account that cannot be accessed until the first $5.7 million is spent. If any portion of the $2 million is needed for medical marijuana enforcement or licensure, the director of the state licensing authority shall send notice to the state comptroller before spending any of the money in the reserve account. The bill transfers $2 million from the medical marijuana program cash fund to the department of public health and environment, division of prevention services, exclusively for prevention programs in the Tony Grampsas youth services program.

The state licensing authority shall collect both the application and licensing fee at the time of application and will refund the license fee if the applicant is denied a local license or withdraws the application.

The state licensing authority shall post a report on its web site by October 31, 2012, that shows the number of applications received, licenses granted, applications denied, applications withdrawn, and the results of enforcement efforts.

On May 3, the Appropriations Committee amended the bill and moved it to the full Senate for consideration on 2nd Reading. The Senate amended and adopted the bill on the bill on 2nd Reading on Friday, May 4. Today, the House adopted the bill on 3rd Reading on a vote of 43-21-1.

Since this summary, the bill moved through the Senate but the 3rd Reading was laid over until May 10.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,

Several More Groups of Bills Signed Into Law by Governor Hickenlooper

May 10, 2012 By Leave a Comment

As the legislature winds down, Governor Hickenlooper continues to sign bills into law. So far this legislative session, Governor Hickenlooper has signed 191 bills into law.

On Thursday, April 26, the governor signed ten bills into law. Four of those are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1236 – Concerning the Regulation of Charitable Solicitations, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation
    Sponsored by Rep. Ken Summers and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill makes several changes to the regulation of charitable solicitations.
  • HB 12-1126 - Concerning On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
    Sponsored by Rep. Cheri Gerou. The bill updates statutes related to the regulation of on-site wastewater treatment systems.
  • HB 12-1313 - Concerning Procedures Related to the Statewide Initiative Title Board
    Sponsored by Rep. Libby Szabo and Sen. Bob Bacon. The bill makes several changes to the procedures of the statewide initiative Title Board.
  • HB 12-1209 - Concerning the “Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act”
    Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Morgan Carroll. The bill establishes procedures for the publication and authentication of certain legal material, including the Colorado Revised Statutes, session laws, constitution, and Code of Colorado Regulations.

Governor Hickenlooper signed 19 bills into law on Thursday, May 3, 2012, including several from the Joint Budget Committee. Four of the bills signed on May 3 are summarized here.

  • HB 12-1258 – Concerning Regulation of Public Utilities in Terms of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
    Sponsored by Rep. Brian DelGrosso and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill requires public utilities to make reasonable efforts to provide service connection for fueling of alternative fuel vehicles.
  • SB 12-158 – Concerning the Consolidation of Two Public Housing Agencies Within the Division of Housing in the Department of Local Affairs
    Sponsored by Sen. Betty Boyd and Rep. Laura Bradford. The bill clarifies that the Division of Housing is the sole public housing authority for providing financial housing assistance, and shifts the Homeless Prevention Activities Program to the Division of Housing.
  • HB 12-1340 – Concerning a Reduction in the General Fund Portion of the Per Diem Rates Paid to Nursing Facilities, and, In Connection Therewith, Reducing an Appropriation
    Sponsored by Rep. Jon Becker and Sen. Kent Lambert. The bill reduces the per diem rates paid to skilled nursing facilities by 1.5 for Fiscal Year 2012-13 only.
  • SB 12-110 – Concerning a Fund Consisting of Surcharges on Insurance Premiums to Pay for Costs Associated with Criminal Prosecution of Insurance Fraud Investigations, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation
    Sponsored by Sen. Pat Steadman and Rep. Claire Levy. The bill changes the amount of fees paid to the state by insurance companies to a two-tier schedule set by the Commissioner of Insurance.

On Monday, May 7, Governor Hickenlooper signed the budget bill for the next fiscal year. The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of legislators – it received 86 yes votes and only 8 no votes. Governor Hickenlooper lauded the legislature for approving the bill with such an impressive majority. The “long bill,” HB 12-1335, contains separate links to the budgets for all state agencies, including add-ons for some agencies.

Governor Hickenlooper signed seven more bills into law on Wednesday, May 9, 2012. Three of them are summarized here.

  • SB 12-012 – Concerning the Department of Revenue’s Audits of Automobile Emissions Inspection Facilities
    Sponsored by Sen. Steve King and Rep. Joe Miklosi. The bill decreases the frequency of overt audits of vehicle emission inspection facilities and increases the frequency of covert audits.
  • SB 12-060 – Concerning Improving Medicaid Fraud Prosecution
    Sponsored by Sen. Ellen Roberts. The bill requries reporting by certain state agencies for the legislature’s use the following year in order to evaluate Medicaid fraud.
  • HB 12-1262 – Concerning Enactment of Amendments to the Secured Transactions Provisions of the “Uniform Commercial Code”
    Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gardner and Sen. Ellen Roberts. The bill adopts changes to the Uniform Commercial Code as recommended by the Colorado Commission on Uniform Laws.

A complete list of legislation signed by Governor Hickenlooper in 2012 is available here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

SB 12-182: Creation of the “Invest in Colorado Act” and Establishment of Parameters for Benefit Corporations

May 7, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On April 26, 2012, Sen. Bob Bacon and Rep. Tom Massey introduced SB 12-182 – Concerning Benefit Corporations. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill enacts the “Invest in Colorado Act,” and authorizes the creation of benefit corporations. A benefit corporation must have, as one of its purposes specified in its articles of incorporation, the goal of creating general public benefit. The bill establishes the requirements for a corporation to be created as, or to elect to become, a benefit corporation, including:

  • The election and termination of benefit status;
  • The promotion of general public benefit as a purpose of the corporation;
  • Standards of accountability for the conduct of directors and officers of a benefit corporation;
  • Designation of a benefit director;
  • Rights of action in benefit proceedings; and
  • The preparation and availability of annual benefit reports.

The bill specifies dissenters’ rights for shareholders of a benefit corporation. The bill clarifies that an offer or sale of a security of a benefit corporation is not a solicitation for purposes of the “Colorado Charitable Solicitations Act” if the offer or sale complies with the “Colorado Securities Act.”

Assigned to the Judiciary Committee, the bill is scheduled for committee review on Monday, April 30 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill was referred unamended from the Judiciary Committee to Appropriations. It was amended in the Appropriations Committee and referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole for second reading.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , ,

HB 12-1354: Requiring that Dog Breeders Provide Humane Environments for the Dogs They Breed

May 4, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On April 27, 2012, Rep. Wes McKinley introduced HB 12-1354 – Concerning the Requirement that a Dog Breeder Provide Dogs with Access to Solid Flooring in the Cages Where They Are Kept in the Dog Breeder’s Pet Animal Facility. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill requires a dog breeder to provide dogs with access to sanitary, ventilated, solid flooring in the cages where they are kept in the dog breeder’s pet animal facility. The bill is assigned to the Assigned to Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee. Committee review of the bill is scheduled for Monday, April 30 at 1:30 p.m.

Since this summary, the bill was amended in committee and referred to the House floor, where it was laid over daily for second reading.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Tenth Circuit: Petitioner Used Fifth Amendment Privilege to Manipulate Securities Fraud Litigation Process; Not Abuse of Discretion to Deny Leave to Withdraw Assertion

April 30, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in SEC v. Smart on Friday, April 27, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. In 2009, the SEC began investigating Petitioner, who was the sole owner of Smart Assets, for securities fraud. Petitioner appeared before the agency to provide testimony, but his counsel instructed him “to take the Fifth Amendment,” and the proceeding ended. The next day, the SEC sued Petitioner and Smart Assets, claiming Petitioner “had defrauded multiple investors because he had represented that investors’ money would be placed in low-risk financial instruments, but he then used their money to cover his and his wife’s personal expenses, pay prior investors, and engage in high-risk ventures, like hard-money lending. In the process, he commingled investor funds, fabricated account statements, refused investors’ inquiries about their money, misled investors about his affiliation with a financial-planning firm, gave promissory notes as collateral for investment funds, and gave investors bogus financial product-information sheets.” The SEC moved for summary judgment and asked the district court to draw an adverse inference against Petitioner in regard to his Fifth Amendment invocations. Petitioner sought a continuance. The district court granted summary judgment, citing Petitioner’s “failure to raise a genuine issue of fact, and it inferred from his Fifth Amendment invocation that ‘he knowingly and purposely defrauded investors.’”

On appeal, Petitioner contends that he should have been permitted to withdraw his assertion of the Fifth Amendment and have his declarations considered in opposing summary judgment. The Court disagreed, stating that the circuit has “not yet defined the parameters in a civil case for withdrawing an invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” However, the “circumstances of [Petitioner]’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment reveal that he was using the privilege to manipulate the litigation process. . . . Further, [Petitioner] took the Fifth during the deposition of Smart Assets after conferring with the company’s counsel. . . . Given the circumstances of this case, [the Court concluded] that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [Petitioner] leave to withdraw his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and in striking his declarations.” Additionally, Petitioner failed to provide evidence to contradict the SEC’s evidence of his frauds.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

CBA Ethics Committee Updates Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation”

April 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee has been working on updating their Formal Ethics Opinions in order to reflect changes in the law, including the 2008 revision to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. As part of that effort, the Ethics Committee released an updated version of Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation” in December 2011, and it was published in the March 2012 issue of The Colorado Lawyer.

Formal Opinion 68 addresses four specific conflict situations:

1) representation of both a husband and wife in negotiating a property settlement before dissolution proceedings commence;
2) representation of both the buyer and seller in a residential real estate transaction;
3) representation of both the buyer and seller of a business; and
4) representation of individuals in drafting an entity agreement, and representation of solely an entity in its formation.

The Ethics Committee opines that, in the first scenario, the dual representation would be impermissible under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC or Rules) because even if the divorce settlement agreement is uncontested, it must be approved by the court, and counsel cannot represent two parties whose interests are adverse under Colo. RPC 1.7.

In the second, third, and fourth scenarios, which are all transactional, the Ethics Committee declines to issue a blanket prohibition on representing both parties to the proposed transactions, but rather notes that each individual situation will require a thorough analysis of the propriety of the representation.

Opinion 68 provides a thoughtful and detailed evaluation of Colo. RPC 1.7 and its comments. It thoroughly examines informed consent, including when and whether it is appropriate, what can be consented to, how to obtain informed consent, the need to obtain new consent when there are situational changes, and confirmation in writing. Each scenario listed above is explored in depth, and the propriety of dual representation is examined for all for sample scenarios. The message of the Ethics Committee is clear: an attorney must examine the specific scenario involving a concurrent conflict of interest with the utmost scrutiny and caution prior to undertaking representation of conflicting parties.

The Ethics Committee develops its formal opinions as a means for providing Colorado attorneys with guidance. However, they issue the following caveat:

Formal Ethics Opinions are issued for advisory purposes only and are not in any way binding on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the Attorney Regulation Committee, or the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, and do not provide protection against disciplinary actions.

Filed Under: Updates Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

HB 12-1347: Eliminating the Limit on Amount of Beer a Brew Pub Can Produce Annually if it Does Not Sell Beer Wholesale to Retailers

April 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On April 17, 2012, Rep. Jim Kerr and Sen. Cheri Jahn introduced HB 12-1347 – Concerning the Limitation on the Amount of Beer a Brew Pub Licensed Under the “Colorado Liquor Code” Can Produce Annually. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Under the “Colorado Liquor Code,” a brew pub is defined as a retail establishment that manufactures no more than 1,860,000 gallons of full-strength and 3.2% beer on its licensed premises each year. The bill permits a licensed brew pub to manufacture an amount of beer in excess of the limitation if the brew pub does not sell beer at wholesale to licensed retailers. On April 19 the Finance Committee amended the bill and moved it to the floor of the House for consideration on 2nd Reading.

Since this summary, the House Second Reading was laid over daily.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , ,

Colorado Court of Appeals: Cattle Who Were “Produced In” Oklahoma and Shipped to Colorado From Missouri Were Considered Securities

April 17, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Great Plains National Bank, N.A. v. Mount on April 12, 2012.

Summary Judgment—Food Security Act—Security Interests in Cattle—Uniform Commercial Code.

In this consolidated appeal, defendants Jamie Mount and Cattle Consultants, LLC appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Great Plains National Bank, N.A. (Great Plains) on their separate motions for summary judgment. The judgment was affirmed.

This consolidated case involved two disputes. Mount claimed under the Food Security Act of 1985 (FSA) that he purchased 206 head of cattle free of a security interest claimed by Great Plains. Cattle Consultants and Great Plains each claimed a superior security interest in the 206 head of cattle.

In October 2009, Fred Smith obtained a loan from Great Plains and granted a security interest covering “[a]ll cattle” that he owned at the time or would acquire in the future. On November 19, 2009, Great Plains filed a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statement with the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office reflecting this interest. Great Plains also filed an effective financing statement (EFS) in Oklahoma, as required by the FSA, on December 17, 2009.

On February 15, 2010, Mount agreed to purchase 206 head of cattle from Smith. That same day, Cattle Consultants financed Mount’s purchase, and Mount granted Cattle Consultants a security interest in the 206 head of cattle. Cattle Consultants filed a UCC financing statement with the Colorado Secretary of State on March 8, 2010.

Mount believed he was buying 206 head of cattle located in Oklahoma, but Smith actually fulfilled the purchase with cattle he had just bought on February 14, 2010 from a broker in Missouri. On February 18, 2010, Smith received a shipment of 231 head of cattle from the Missouri cattle broker. The next day, he loaded 206 of them onto trucks bound for Colorado. Mount paid for the shipping.

Smith paid the Missouri cattle broker with a check with insufficient funds, but Great Plains covered it. Great Plains couldn’t recoup the money from Smith. In April 2010, Great Plains sought to enforce its security interest in the 206 head of cattle purchased by Mount and filed a UCC financing statement against Smith in Colorado.

All parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court ruled in favor of Great Plains. The court concluded that the cattle were “produced in” Oklahoma, such that under the FSA, Mount’s purchase was subject to Great Plains’ financing statement filed in that state. The court further found that Cattle Consultants’ security interest in the cattle was junior to Great Plains’ security interest. Mount and Cattle Consultants appealed.

Mount argued the trial court misinterpreted the phrase “produced in” under the FSA. The Court had to determine whether Mount’s cattle were “produced in” Oklahoma. If so, they were subject to Great Plains’ security interest. If not, they were free and clear of that security interest. Under the FSA, buyers of farm products generally take free of a security interest created by the seller; however, there is an exception under 7 U.S.C. § 1631(e) that applies where (1) the farm product was produced in a state that has a central filing system; (2) the buyer has failed to register with that state’s secretary of state; and (3) the secured party has filed an effective financing statement covering the farm products being sold.

Mount challenged the district court finding that the cattle were produced in Oklahoma, arguing they were produced in Missouri, which has no central filing system. The phrase “produced in” is undefined in the FSA and no case law was found in this regard. The Court of Appeals therefore looked to the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, which it found ambiguous and, as a consequence, turned to legislative history. It noted that Mount’s argument could result in buyers purchasing farm products subject to security interests they had no practical method of discovering (Mount himself believed he was buying cattle from Oklahoma). Based on the purposes of the FSA as stated in its legislative history, the Court held that “produced in” means the location where farm products are furnished or made available for commerce. Therefore, it affirmed the district court’s decision that Mount purchased the cattle subject to the perfected security interest claimed by Great Plains.

Cattle Consultants argued it had a senior security interest in Great Plains because Mount, not Smith, owned the cattle when they entered Oklahoma; therefore, Great Plains did not have a security interest in them and its purchase money security interest (PMSI) had priority over any competing security interest. The Court disagreed. Under the UCC, a security interest is enforceable against a debtor and third parties with respect to the collateral when (1) value is given; (2) the debtor has rights in the collateral; and (3) the debtor has signed a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. Here, it was undisputed that Great Plains gave value to Smith; Smith had an ownership interest in the cattle; and Smith gave Great Plains a security agreement with an interest in all cattle owned or later acquired.

The Court also disagreed that the PMSI had priority. Great Plains filed its financing statement on November 19, 2009. This filing was done before Smith acquired rights in the cattle and thus was perfected at the moment of attachment. Cattle Consultants did not file their financing statement until March 2010. Great Plains was the first to file, and therefore had priority.

Summary and full case available here.

Filed Under: Case Law Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Spark the Discussion: When Life Gives You Lemons…

April 16, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Colorado’s state-licensed medical marijuana businesses have recently come under attack by U.S. Attorney John Walsh for locating in areas he deems problematic—specifically being within 1,000 feet of universities and other schools. In the past three months, Walsh has issued 50 letters to targeted medical marijuana shops asking them to close or face federal criminal and civil sanctions. Not surprisingly, all of these state-licensed stores have chosen to move their locations or close their doors entirely.

Instead of lamenting this negative turn of events, Colorado’s various medical marijuana advocacy and industry groups—including the United Food and Commercial Worker’s Union—recently decided to publish a letter highlighting the positive things these businesses bring to communities in Colorado. This attempt to shift focus to the positive contributions of Colorado’s emerging medical marijuana community is re-printed in its entirety below.

A LETTER TO US ATTORNEY JOHN WALSH: “We Care about our Community, too”

Dear Mr. Walsh,

As parents, patients, business owners, and Colorado citizens, we are concerned by the recent letters sent by your office demanding certain state-approved medical marijuana businesses cease operations.

Since the dawn of this new health care field, we have worked closely with Colorado state and local governments to safely regulate medical marijuana sales and production, and have made great efforts – and gone to great expense — to establish a thorough and safe regulatory structure. Because of this collaboration between stakeholders and state and local officials, Colorado has emerged as the model among states that legally recognize the medicinal value of marijuana.

We stand in unison with patients and governing bodies across Colorado in our active commitment to continue the careful implementation of a secure and community-minded system of regulation. Here is a partial list of our contributions to the Colorado community:

  • We have provided vital medicine to 164,000+ sick and disabled Colorado citizens whose doctors have recommended medical marijuana to them.
  • We helped author and endorse SB 12-154– to establish a responsible vendor program similar to what many Colorado jurisdictions currently require for alcohol sales.
  • We are working with the Denver City Council to foster sensible regulations, including currently working on language to limit inappropriate advertisements, specifically public advertisements near schools and other sensitive areas.
  • We worked with local papers, like the Colorado Springs Gazette, to establish community-conscious advertising with a proper healthcare focus.
  • We employ over 5,000 Coloradans and provide them with a living wage so they can support their families. We also provide substantial support for ancillary businesses like electricians, carpenters, and engineers.
  • Our businesses produce tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue with the first $2 million earmarked annually for programs critical to helping Colorado fight addiction and accompanying mental health issues. The Circle Program at Pueblo’s Colorado Mental Health Institute was on its last legs before this new tax supported it.
  • We help create safer neighborhoods through the extensive use of security cameras and guards, by increased lighting in commercial areas, and by occupying otherwise vacant retail or warehouse space.

As committed members of the communities we live in, we believe in responsible regulation of this important, and growing, health care field. We also share your concern about teens accessing medical marijuana and have taken serious steps to reduce any redistribution. We welcome a thoughtful discussion about the potential areas for improvement in the current regulatory structure.

Sincerely,

Association of Cannabis Trades for Colorado (ACT4CO)

Cannabis Business Alliance (CBA)

Coloradans 4 Cannabis Patients Rights (C4CPR)

Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council (CSMCC)

Green Faith Ministry

In Harmony Wellness Services

Medical Marijuana Assistance Program of America (MMAPA)

Medical Marijuana Business Alliance (MMBA)

Sensible Colorado

Women’s Marijuana Movement

United Food and Commercial Workers Union:  Local 7

Brian Vicente, Esq., is a founding member of Vicente Consulting, LLC, a law firm providing legal solutions for the medical marijuana community. He also serves as executive director of Sensible Colorado, the state’s leading non-profit working for medical marijuana patients and providers. Brian is the chair of the Denver Mayor’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, serves on the Colorado Department of Revenue Medical Marijuana Oversight Panel, and coordinates the Colorado Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project.

The opinions and views expressed by Featured Bloggers on CBA-CLE Legal Connection do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of the Colorado Bar Association, the Denver Bar Association, or CBA-CLE, and should not be construed as such.
Filed Under: Spark the Discussion Tagged With: , , , , ,

HB 12-1325: Changing Sales Limits for Meth Precursor Drugs; Requiring Stores to Submit Purchasers’ Information to National Online Log

April 16, 2012 By Leave a Comment

On March 9, 2012, Rep. Ken Summers and Sen. Jeanne Nicholson introduced HB 12-1325 – Concerning Tracking Transactions Related to Methamphetamine Precursor Drugs. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill changes the 24-hour period to a period of one calendar day during which any person may not knowingly deliver in or from a store to the same individual, and a person may not purchase from a store, more than 3.6 grams of a methamphetamine precursor drug, or a combination of two or more methamphetamine precursor drugs. The bill adds more than 9 grams of methamphetamine precursor drugs during a 30-day period to those prohibitions. A store is required to check a customer’s identification before selling the methamphetamine precursor drug and keep a log of each sale.

Beginning January 1, 2013, a store before completing a precursor sale must electronically submit the required information to the national precursor log exchange if the system is available without a charge to stores for access. If the sale would result in the store or purchaser violating the quantity limits, the system will generate a stop sale alert. The person shall not complete the sale if the system generates a stop sale alert; except that the person may make the sale if he or she has a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm if the sale is not completed. If the electronic system is unavailable, the store must keep a log until the system becomes available. There is an exception for stores that make fewer than 10 transactions during a seven day period.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation will receive weekly reports from the national precursor log exchange and can allow Colorado law enforcement agencies to access the exchange. The provisions preempt any local ordinances. On March 27, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill are referred it to the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear the bill on Thursday, April 12 at 1:30 pm.

Summaries of other featured bills can be found here.

Filed Under: Legislation Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts