May 22, 2013

The Intersection of Lawful Off-Duty Activities and Employment Discrimination

A few years ago, the national and local news ran a story about a man who was employed by a company that distributes Budweiser beer and was fired for drinking a Coors (click here for the Denver Post story). The man said that the company president’s son-in-law saw him sipping the Coors, and he was terminated two days later.

We know there are two sides to every story, and the article focused on the man’s story, not the employer’s. However, if what the man said was true, the employer violated the Lawful Activities Statute, C.R.S. § 24-34-402.5. This statute provides “It shall be a discriminatory or unfair practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee’s engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. . . .” The statute applies only to employees, not job applications.

The statute enumerates three exceptions to this rule, if the conduct: (1) relates to a bona fide occupational requirement; (2) creates a conflict of interest; and (3) is rationally related to the employment activities.

In the beer case, the employer claimed that the employee’s activity fell under all three exceptions–the employer stated that the employee was terminated to avoid a conflict of interest, and that his conduct was rationally related to a bona fide occupational requirement.

The beer case never went to trial, but the issue is not uncommon in employment disputes. Very few cases have interpreted the statute, however; Marsh v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Colo. 1997) provides most of the guidance on the issue.

To learn more about the intersection of lawful off-duty activities and employment discrimination, don’t miss CBA-CLE’s Employment Law Conference April 4 and 5 at the Denver Marriott City Center. Click the links below to register online or call (303) 860-0608.

CLE Program: 2013 Employment Law Conference

This CLE presentation will take place on Thursday and Friday, April 4 and 5, 2013, at the Denver Marriott City Center. Click here to register for the live program.

Can’t make the live program? Click here to order the homestudy.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Veterans’ Benefits Petition

On Monday, January 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for review of a May Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the processing of medical benefits for veterans. The denial by the Court effectively affirms the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the judicial branch lacks authority to decide such appeals.

The case was originally brought by veterans’ advocacy groups in 2007.  After a bench trial in 2008, United States District Judge Samuel Conti concluded that the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeals, citing the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act and noting that the court lacked power to remedy the wrongs against veterans documented by “voluminous” evidentiary submissions to the court. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Ca. 2008). 

A panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision in 2011, ordering that, because of the serious nature of the claims, veterans groups could ask the court to order changes in the system. Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011). Upon request for a new hearing before a larger panel, however, that ruling was reversed.

The full panel of the Ninth Circuit determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

[W]e lack jurisdiction to afford such relief because Congress, in its discretion, has elected to place judicial review of claims related to the provision of veterans’ benefits beyond our reach and within the exclusive purview of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. . . . As much as we as citizens are concerned with the plight of veterans seeking the prompt provision of the health care and benefits to which they are entitled by law, as judges we may not exceed our jurisdiction.

Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2012). In September, the plaintiff veterans organizations submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether the Veterans Judicial Review Act allows veterans to challenge in federal court the systemic delays in the VA’s provision of mental health care and death and disability compensation. That petition was denied on Monday, January 7, 2013. Plaintiff group Veterans for Common Sense issued a statement in response to the denial, stating in part

We are deeply disappointed the Court did not hear the urgent plea of suicidal Veterans who face delays of months, and often years, seeking VA assistance.  Although significant improvements were made in some areas within VA, such as a suicide hotline set up after our lawsuit that rescued 23,000 distraught Veterans, the nation’s second largest department remains in deep crisis.

The Colorado Bar Association, in conjunction with several bar associations across the state, has established Colorado Lawyers for Colorado Veterans, a service where veterans can meet with an attorney regarding their legal issues free of charge. Attorneys wishing to assist with this program can contact Carolyn Gravit.

Eligibility for VA benefits and appeals processes will be discussed at the January 31, 2013 program, “Fundamentals of Practicing Before the Veterans’ Administration 2013.” This three-hour program will take place at 9 a.m. at the CLE offices. It qualifies for the VA three-hour training requirement for attorneys who wish to represent veterans before the Veterans’ Administration. Attorneys can attend for a significantly reduced rate by taking a pro bono case. Click here for registration information.

CLE Program: Fundamentals of Practicing Before the Veterans’ Administration 2013

This CLE presentation will take place on Thursday, January 31, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Click here to register for the live program, and click here to register for the webcast.

Can’t make the live program? Click here to order the homestudy.

Evidence and Ethics – What to Do When Handed a Smoking Gun

Gerald Pratt photo NEWThe Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct are clear that when an attorney is in possession of client property, such as a retainer, the attorney must exercise the utmost care in safekeeping that property. However, what are the ethical guidelines to follow if the property the attorney is asked to keep safe has been used in a crime? Is it ethical for an attorney to keep safe a gun that was used in the commission of a crime?

The Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that all client dealings must be kept confidential. However, they also require that attorneys refrain from conduct involving deceit, fraud, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. How can an attorney retain confidentiality while not assisting the client in hiding a murder weapon? What is the attorney to do about the evidentiary issues that arise in this scenario?

These topics and more will be discussed on Friday, December 28, 2012 at noon. Gerald Pratt, of Pratt & Landry, will present on ethical issues involved in procuring evidence. He will give guidance on how an attorney should react when presented with a smoking gun or a compromised computer, the nuances of preserving evidence versus limiting access to evidence, and more. Please join us for this final ethics presentation of the year.

CLE Program: The Smoking Gun, the Compromised Computer, and Other Ethics Issues Involved in Procuring Evidence

This CLE presentation will take place on Friday, December 28, 2012, at 12:00 p.m. (noon). Click here to register for the live program, or click here to register for the webcast.

Can’t make the live program? Click here to order the homestudy.

Out of State Attorneys and Ethics – Your Questions Answered

In this age of technology, the importance of physical proximity is diminishing. With an electronic device and a wi-fi connection, a law practice can be operated practically anywhere. An attorney from, say, New York could theoretically remotely operate a New York practice out of Colorado. The question, though, is whether this is ethical.

Another scenario is for an out-of-state attorney to work on Colorado cases pro hac vice. Would the out-of-state attorney need co-counsel in Colorado? What if some ethical violation were committed—where would the grievance be filed? Would the co-counsel face discipline as well?

Finally, is it ethical for an out-of-state attorney to live and practice in Colorado if he or she only does federal work? What happens if that attorney violates ethics rules—is there any recourse?

We asked these questions of Amy DeVan from the Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. She, along with colleague James Coyle, will present on these issues at a lunch program on Thursday, December 27, 2012 at noon at the CLE offices. It is a perfect opportunity to get your questions answered while fulfilling ethics requirements.

CLE Program: Blurring the Lines: Cross-Border Practice of Law

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, December 27, 2012, at 12:00 p.m. (noon). Click here to register for the live program, or click here to register for the webcast.

Can’t make the live program? Click here to order the homestudy.

Hearsay, the Confrontation Clause, and the Colorado Rules of Evidence

Hearsay is governed by Article VIII of the Colorado and Federal Rules of Evidence. In criminal cases, the use of hearsay by the government against the defendant is also governed by the Confrontation Clause. Colorado Rule of Evidence 802, the hearsay rule, provides that “[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by the civil and criminal procedural rules applicable to the courts of Colorado or by any statutes of the State of Colorado.” The general ban on hearsay is premised upon the same beliefs that underlie the Confrontation Clause in the federal and Colorado constitutions, namely, that the reliability of a statement can be most accurately determined when the declarant comes before the fact-finder in person, testifies under oath, and is tested by cross-examination.

Most hearsay testimony is admitted under one of the hearsay exceptions. The exceptions to the general ban are usually premised on a belief that the circumstances surrounding the making of certain types of statements satisfy the reliability concerns that gave rise to the general ban.

CRE 803 enumerates 23 exceptions to the hearsay rule for which the availability of the declarant is immaterial. These include spontaneous present sense impression, excited utterance, recorded recollection, records of regularly conducted activity, public records, and more. Statements can fall under multiple exceptions, such as excited utterance and spontaneous present sense impression.

Rule 804 lists hearsay exceptions that apply when the declarant is unavailable. “Unavailable” is defined and the exceptions are listed, including previous testimony, statements against interest, and statements of personal or family history.

CRE 807 is the “catch-all” or “residual” hearsay exception. It was developed after a 1984 Colorado Supreme Court decision, W.C.L. v. People, 685 P.2d 176 (Colo. 1984), in which the statements of a child victim of sexual assault did not fall into any of the specifically enumerated hearsay exceptions. Rule 807 was carved out of CRE 803(24) and 804(b)(5). The residual exception contained in CRE 807 is an under-utilized tool for admitting hearsay statements that do not fit neatly into any of the specific exceptions set out in the rules of evidence.

It is important for every litigator to know and use the hearsay rules, both as the proponent of the hearsay testimony and in opposition. Visit the CLE offices on Tuesday, October 23, when Pat Furman, law professor at the University of Colorado, will present on “Using, Misusing, and Abusing the Hearsay Rules.”

CLE Program:Using, Misusing, and Abusing the Hearsay Rules

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, October 23, at 12:00 p.m. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

CBA-CLE Business Law Institute with Plenary Speakers Tom Clark and Nat Stoddard

The CBA-CLE 2012 Business Law Institute is happening on October 18-19 at the Four Seasons Denver. The Business Law Institute will feature Tom Clark, CEO, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, who will present on “Denver’s Economic Climate and Business Outlook,” and Nat Stoddard, Chairman, Crenshaw Associates, New York, who will discuss “M&A Risk Reduction, Post-Deal Integration Success and Long-Term Value Recognition for You and Your Clients.”

Tom Clark is Chief Executive Officer of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and the Executive Vice President of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. He has more than 30 years of economic development experience at the state, regional, county and city levels. Tom’s career spans four decades from Director of Commercial and Industrial Development for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, through positions with the Fort Collins, Colorado Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Denver Corporation, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the Jefferson Economic Council, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Tom was the founder and first president of the Metro Denver Network, the Metro Denver region’s first economic development program, for which he received the Arthur D. Little Award for Excellence in Economic Development. He was chosen as one of the nation’s top economic development professionals by the Council on Urban Economic Development.

Nat Stoddard is the author of The Right Leader: Selecting Executives Who Fit, which establishes the importance of cultural fit between companies and leaders. The Right Leader shows how companies can reduce the risks and costs of leadership failure by defining their culture and picking leaders with cultural fit in mind. Nat leads the Forward Assessment Consulting™ practice at Crenshaw Associates, serves as an Advisor to CEOs and Lead Directors/Board Chairs, and is an Executive Mentor to Transition Clients. Nat is the former Chairman, President, and CEO of several public and private companies ranging from $300M to $1B including World Kitchen, Camco (GE’s Canadian affiliate) and Garden Way, Inc. He holds an MBA from the University of Denver and a BS from Denison University.

The Business Law Institute will also feature an exceptional faculty of over twenty leading Colorado business law practitioners includes general counsel from top Colorado companies, experienced business attorneys from Colorado law firms, and professors from the University of Colorado Law School and the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. The institute also offers two tracks this year, a Basics Track for attorneys newer to business law, and an Advanced Track for the more experienced practitioner. For the complete agenda and faculty, go to: http://business.annualcle.com/.

ABA House of Delegates’ Ethics 20/20 Commission Approves Changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

The dawn of the information age has changed life as we know it. Our personal lives and businesses have been affected, and the practice of law is no exception. The ABA House of Delegates’ Ethics 20/20 Commission met in August to decide how best to advise attorneys of their ethical obligations in the global marketplace. The top ten issues addressed by the House of Delegates were:

  1. Protecting client information in electronic communications;
  2. Cloud storage and properly safeguarding protected client information;
  3. How to set up an ethical screen for a new attorney with a shared electronic network;
  4. The importance of competency in a multi-jurisdictional practice;
  5. How attorneys who frequently change jurisdictions can practice law without undergoing rigorous admittance procedures;
  6. Outsourcing to other lawyers and non-lawyers, and potential hazards;
  7. What types of online behaviors could potentially create an attorney-client relationship (including social media, communications on law firm websites, etc.);
  8. The ethical propriety of advertising on the internet, and whether pay-per-click ads constitute improper referral services;
  9. The importance of competency in technology, including some understanding of electronically stored information; and
  10. Advising clients on technology, such as maintaining electronically stored information.

The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to provide guidance to the states, and to encourage adoption of a standard procedure throughout the country for attorney regulation and discipline. However, although resolutions on the above topics were passed by the ABA, they are not binding on Colorado attorneys absent amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

Join us at CBA-CLE on Wednesday, September 12, for a breakfast seminar where Troy Rackham, a representative of the House of Delegates, and Alec Rothrock, from the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct committee, will present on the changes adopted by the ABA and what this means for attorneys in Colorado.

CLE Program: Competency and Confidentiality in Lawyers’ Use of Technology – New Changes to Model Rules of Professional Conduct

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, September 12, at 8:30 a.m. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Colorado Revised Statutes Now an eBook for Mobile Devices

We are excited to announce that Circuit Media, in partnership with CBA-CLE, has developed a 3-volume, digital version of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). An essential part of any attorney’s work day, the C.R.S. eBook will be available for purchase and download on any eReader (this includes your iPad, iPhone, Droid, and Kindle) for research on the go.

Benefits of using the C.R.S. eBook:

  1. Officially sanctioned version using the official text of the C.R.S. – ensuring accuracy and integrity
  2. Access anywhere, any time – no Internet connection needed
  3. Provides you with productivity tools to make your work easier including highlighting, copy and paste, bookmark and note creation
  4. Keyword and text search capabilities
  5. All 43 Titles accessible at your fingertips without the headache (and backache!)

The C.R.S. eBook will be utilized by thousands of attorneys daily. Looking for attorney referrals to increase your brand awareness or your business? Advertising within the C.R.S. eBook is an easy and cost-effective way to expand your net.

For all the details, email info@circuitmedia.com.

The complete eBook information guide and advertising order form can be read below, or click here to download or print it.

Colorado Revised Statutes Now an eBook

Professors Calhoun and Wilkinson Named Winners of Jules Milstein Scholarship Award

Editor’s Note: Celebrate the opening of the Supreme Court’s next term. Details below.

The University of Colorado School of Law has announced professors Emily Calhoun and Charles Wilkinson as the 2012 winners of the Jules Milstein Scholarship Award. Prof. Calhoun is the author of Losing Twice, while Prof. Wilkinson was recognized for The People are Dancing Again. As noted on the CU Law website, the award is given to “Colorado Law faculty . . . for a substantial published work that best demonstrates excellence in legal scholarship. It is normally given once a year at the end of the spring semester for a work published at any point in the preceding two calendar years.”

Prof. Calhoun began her legal career in the early 1970s as a civil rights attorney with the Southern Regional Office of the ACLU. She has consulted with organizations and attorneys on civil rights issues, and has worked to protect faculty rights and privileges through administrative and other service at the University of Colorado. She teaches and writes in the areas of civil rights, intractable disputes, and federal jurisdiction. In addition to her faculty responsibilities, Professor Calhoun currently serves as both a mediator and an ombudsperson for faculty disputes at the University. In Losing Twice, Prof. Calhoun argues that Supreme Court decisions often inflict a second loss on the losing parties and that the outrage generated by well-known decisions such as Gonzales v. Carhart and Bowers v. Hardwick is a consequence of this second loss.

Prof. Wilkinson worked with the Native American Rights Fund and taught at the University of Oregon, the University of Michigan, and the University of Minnesota before coming to CU Law in 1987. Prof. Wilkinson’s scholarship and teaching focus on federal public land law and Indian law. He is the author of thirteen books, ranging from text books on public land law and Indian law to books aimed at a general audience. Prof. Wilkinson received the 2005 Colorado Book Award in the History category for Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations and the 2000 Colorado Book Award in the Colorado/West category for Messages From Frank’s Landing. His latest book, The People Are Dancing Again: The Siletz Tribe Of Western Oregon, explores the history of Oregon’s Siletz tribe from initial contact with Europeans through termination of the tribe and eventual restoration of the tribe’s official status.

Please join Prof. Calhoun at the CBA-CLE offices on October 1, 2012, as we celebrate the opening of the Supreme Court’s next term. Prof. Calhoun will discuss Losing Twice, and encourages participants to bring examples of U.S. Supreme Court constitutional rights decisions that they consider to be outrageous. These decisions will be used to explore Professor Calhoun’s argument about losing twice in rights disputes.

CLE Program: Losing Twice – Harms of Indifference in the Supreme Court with Emily Calhoun

This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, October 1. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

2012 Legislative Update with Michael Valdez: Tales from Under the Golden Dome

It’s been a month since Governor Hickenlooper signed the last bill to come out of the 2012 legislative session. In all, over 300 bills were signed into law this year. Everything from criminal law to elder law and juvenile law to real estate law was addressed by the General Assembly, and Michael Valdez has the breakdown on which laws are poised to affect your practice and what you need to know.

He’ll be in the CBA-CLE classroom on Tuesday, July 10 to give his annual Legislative Wrap-Up CLE Presentation. Watch the teaser trailer for “Tales from Under the Golden Dome” below and register today! (Details below).

CLE Program: 2012 Legislative Update with Michael Valdez – Tales from Under the Golden Dome

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, July 10. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

Abuse of Power in Arizona: The Colorado Attorneys Who Successfully Prosecuted the Largest Attorney Ethics Case in History

On July 18, 2012, Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel John Gleason and Chief Deputy Jamie Sudler will be in the CBA-CLE classroom to share their experiences from their two-year investigation and prosecution in Maricopa County and what became the “most significant attorney discipline case to ever go to hearing.”

Their story begins with years of intimidation and retaliation by the former Maricopa County Attorney. His targets were sitting judges, County Supervisors, County administrators, and private lawyers. After years of prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law in Maricopa County was fast disappearing. As the elected head of the fourth-largest county in the United States, his misuse of power led to the largest lawyer discipline prosecution in history (chronicled in a 33-count, 247-page opinion).

Over the course of their investigation and prosecution, Gleason and Sudler were subject to shocking levels of harassment and intimidation as they worked to bring down a web of abuses at the highest levels. This program will allow them to speak directly to attorneys so that their extensive investigation into the ethical abuses in Maricopa County can serve as a lesson about prosecutorial misconduct, the Rule of Law, and professional conduct. You won’t want to miss this opportunity to hear first-hand about their experience in Arizona and their attempt to return justice to Maricopa County.

Law Week Colorado recently ran a story, Into The Shadows, which documented Gleason’s and Sudler’s investigation. Read an except below, followed by registration information.

The Arizona Bar Association, which licenses and regulates attorneys, . . . asked the Supreme Court to appoint an independent investigator to look into possible ethical violations by [Andrew] Thomas and two subordinates — Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander. The court reached out to a trusted name, the person who’d just helped revamp the state’s attorney ethics system. Regulation counsel Gleason and his team would be paid by Arizona, set up shop in that state’s Supreme Court building and somehow still manage the Colorado office.

When the chief justice first called, Gleason was far from certain of a positive outcome.

Either way, he and Sudler knew from the beginning this was a career case. As Thomas’ own attorney put it in the weeks leading up to the decision, “This was the largest and most significant attorney discipline case to ever go to hearing.”

It would also be the toughest. In a sense, Gleason and Sudler carried on their backs the hopes of a legal community long frustrated with what Phoenix’s mayor termed a “reign of terror.” Numerous ethics complaints had been filed against Thomas in the past, but none came to fruition.

The case was a piñata waiting to burst open. And when it did, the two attorneys had to deal with more than the legal soap opera. They became targets themselves. As Sudler would later say, “I never thought we’d get through it.”

CLE Program: Prosecutors on Trial – The Rule of Law or Unfettered Discretion

This CLE presentation will take place on Wednesday, July 18. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in two formats: video on-demand and mp3 download.

No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with Attorney General John Suthers

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has never shied away from tackling the tough issues surrounding the powerful role of public prosecutors in the United States. In 2008, he published a book, No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility, that drew on his personal experiences as a local, state, and federal prosecutor, with insights on how to make the system better for everyone involved. The book also explored some of the more controversial calls for reform, including drug legalization. Written in straightforward terms, it provides a fascinating look at the intricacies of crime and punishment.

On May 22, 2012, Suthers will speak at a special 1-hour Literary Lawyers CLE presentation on the issues in his book and thoughts on recent cases and experiences. He will not only speak to the immense and unique power that prosecutors have, but the effects on the victims, perpetrators, and the public. In addition, prosecution ethics will be discussed, including zealous prosecution and the effects of advancing technology.

Public scrutiny has also increasingly come into play for prosecutors, as high-profile cases like the Hayman fire are played out in the press and public arena. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear Attorney General Suthers’ insights first hand. All attendees will also receive a copy of his book.

CLE Program: No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility with John Suthers (Literary Lawyers Series)

This CLE presentation will take place on Tuesday, May 22. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

 

Protected

2013-05-22 11:44:57