August 24, 2019

Rule Change 2015(07) Amends Pro Hac Vice Rules

On Friday, September 11, 2015, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced Rule Change 2015(07), effective September 9, 2015. The rule change affects C.R.C.P. 121, §§ 1-2 and 1-26, and Rule 305.5 of the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure. The changes are minor, generally changing references to out-of-state or foreign attorneys and reflecting that foreign attorneys may be admitted under Rules 205.3 or 205.5 of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar (C.R.C.P. Chapter 18). For a redline of the changes, click here.

Rules from Chapters 18 and 20 of Colorado Rules for Civil Procedure Amended

On January 14, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted Rule Change 2015(02), amending Rules 205.3, 205.5, 205.6, 224, and 227 of Chapter 18 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, and amending Rules 251.1, 260.2, and 260.6 of Chapter 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

The change to Rule 205.3, “Pro Hac Vice Authority Before State Courts — Out-of-State Attorney,” updated the reference in subparagraph (7) to Colo. RPC 1.15A through E. Rules 205.5, “Pro Hac Vice – Foreign Attorney,” and 205.6, “Practice Pending Admission,” were similarly updated to cite to Colo. RPC 1.15A through E. The updates to Rule 227 were also minor, changing the reference in subparagraph (2)(a)(4) to Colo. RPC 1.15B and updating citations in the Comment to the “Regstration Fee of Non-Attorney Judges” section of the rule.

In Rule 224, “Provision of Legal Services Following Determination of a Major Disaster,” subparagraphs (2) and (3) were amended to change citations from C.R.C.P. 220(1)(a) and (b) to C.R.C.P. 205.1(a) and (b), and from C.R.C.P. 220 to C.R.C.P. 205.1; citations in subparagraphs (5)(a) and (b) were updated from C.R.C.P. 221 and 221.1 to C.R.C.P. 205.3 and 205.4; and subparagraph (6) was amended to change the citation from C.R.C.P. 220(3) to 205.1(3) and add a citation to Colo. RPC 8.5.

Citations were also updated in Rules 251.1, 260.2, and 260.6. Rule 251.1, “Discipline and Disability; Policy — Jurisdiction,” was changed to reference Rules 204 and 205 instead of Rules 220, 221, and 222. Subsection (4) of Rule 260.2, “CLE Requirements,” was amended to clarify that the subsection was repealed and replaced by C.R.C.P. 203.2(6), 203.3(4), and 203.4(6). Citations in subsections (5)(a) and (6) of Rule 260.6, “Compliance,” were also amended, updating references from Rule 201.14 to Rules 203.2(6), 203.3(4), and 203.4(6).

Click here for the Colorado Supreme Court’s 2015 rules changes.

Rules Governing Admission to the Bar Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On Thursday, July 25, 2013, the Colorado State Judicial Branch released Rule Change 2013(09), concerning Chapter 18 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules Governing Admission to the Bar. The rule change was approved on June 27 and is effective September 1, 2013.

The change to Rule 201.2, “Board of Law Examiners,” clarifies where fees collected under the rule will be held and for what purposes they will be used. The changes to Rule 221, “Out-of-State Attorney — Pro Hac Vice Admission,” increase the fee for pro hac vice admission from $250 to $300. The changes to Rule 222, “Single Client Counsel Certification,” increase the fee for single client counsel certification from $725 to $1,000.

Rule 227 was changed extensively. Some of the changes to Rule 227 involve increasing attorney registration fees. The fee for an active Colorado attorney who has been practicing more than three years will increase from $225 to $325. Fees for attorneys who are in their first three years of practice increased from $180 to $190. Fees for inactive attorneys also increased, from $95 to $130.

The changes to Rule 227 also include clarification about how the fees are used, what should be included on a statement, registration of non-attorney judges, and other minor changes.

For a copy of Rule Change 2013(09), click here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s rule changes, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Out-of-State Counsel Should be Disqualified from Representing Plaintiff Pro Hac Vice when Attorney at Out-of-State Firm Consulted with Defendant

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Liebnow v. Boston Enterprises, Inc. on Monday, February 4, 2013.

Pro Hac Vice Admission—Colo. RPC 1.7 and 1.10—Confidential Client Information.

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order disqualifying plaintiff’s motion for pro hac vice admission of out-of-state counsel, where defense counsel previously had consulted out-of-state counsel at the same firm on the same case. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that (1) the consultation between defense counsel and out-of-state counsel concerned confidential information, which created a conflict under Colo. RPC 1.7(a)(2); and (2) the conflict was not waivable under Colo. RPC 1.7(b) because allowing the consulted attorney to represent plaintiff would undermine the fairness of the trial. The Court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imputing the conflict to the rest of the firm under Colo. RPC 1.10 and disqualifying the firm.

Summary and full case available here.

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.