October 18, 2018

Lieutenant Governor Lynne Signs Final Bills of 2018 Legislative Session

On Wednesday, June 6, 2018, Lieutenant Governor Donna Lynne signed the final bills of the 2018 legislative session into law in Governor Hickenlooper’s absence. Lt. Gov. Lynne signed 35 bills into law. During the 2018 legislative session, 421 bills were signed into law, 9 were vetoed, and 2 were sent to the Secretary of State without a signature. The bills signed Wednesday are summarized here.

  • SB 18-015 – “Concerning the ‘Protecting Homeowners and Deployed Military Personnel Act,'” by Sens. Bob Gardner & Owen Hill and Reps. Dave Williams & Larry Liston. The bill directs a peace officer to remove a person from a residential premises and to order the person to remain off the premises if the owner or owner’s authorized agent (declarant) swears to a declaration making specified statements concerning ownership of the premises and the lack of authority for the person or persons who are on the premises to be there.
  • SB 18-038 – “Concerning the Allowable Uses of Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater, and, in Connection Therewith, Allowing Reclaimed Domestic Wastewater to be Used for Industrial Hemp Cultivation and Making an Appropriation,” by Sens. Kerry Donovan & Don Coram and Reps. Daneya Esgar & Yeulin Willett. The bill codifies rules promulgated by the water quality control commission of the Colorado department of public health and environment concerning allowable uses of reclaimed domestic wastewater, which is wastewater that has been treated for subsequent reuses other than drinking water.
  • SB 18-068 – “Concerning Criminalizing False Reports,” by Sens. John Cooke & Kevin Van Winkle and Rep. Jeff Bridges. Under current law, there is a crime of false reporting to authorities. The bill creates a crime of false reporting of an emergency by criminalizing an act of false reporting to authorities that includes a false report of an imminent threat to the safety of a person or persons by use of a deadly weapon.
  • SB 18-225 – “Concerning the Definition of an Early College for Purposes of the ‘Concurrent Enrollment Programs Act,'” by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. Under the existing statute, an early college is not subject to the requirements of the ‘Concurrent Enrollment Programs Act’. The bill amends the definition of ‘early college’ to specify that an early college must provide only a curriculum that is designed to be completed within 4 years and includes concurrent enrollment in high school and postsecondary courses such that, when a student completes the curriculum, the student has attained a high school diploma and a postsecondary credential or at least 60 credit hours toward completion of a postsecondary credential.
  • SB 18-245 – “Concerning the Disposal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials,” by Sen. John Cooke and Rep. Jeni James Arndt. Current law allows the state board of health to adopt rules concerning the disposal of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) only after the federal environmental protection agency has adopted rules concerning the disposal of NORM. The EPA has not adopted the rules. The bill repeals this prohibition and requires the state board to adopt rules, which must also regulate technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM), by December 31, 2020.
  • SB 18-250 – “Concerning the Provision of Jail-based Behavioral Health Services, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sens. Bob Gardner & Kent Lambert and Reps. Pete Lee & Dave Young. The bill continues to allow the correctional treatment cash fund to be used to provide treatment for persons with mental and behavioral health disorders who are being served through the jail-based behavioral health services program.
  • SB 18-251 – “Concerning Establishing a Statewide Behavioral Health Court Liaison Program, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sens. Bob Gardner & Kent Lambert and Reps. Dave Young & Pete Lee. The bill establishes in the office of the state court administrator a statewide behavioral health court liaison program. The purpose of the program is to identify and dedicate local behavioral health professionals as court liaisons in each state judicial district to facilitate communication and collaboration among judicial, health care, and behavioral health systems.
  • SB 18-255 – “Concerning the Use of Electronic Formats in the Issuance of Certificates of Title for Vehicles,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Reps. Jeni James Arndt & Edie Hooten. Current law provides that a record may not be denied effect merely because it is electronic. The bill clarifies that this applies to documents needed to obtain a certificate of title and electronic signatures.
  • SB 18-259 – “Concerning the Taxation of Retail Marijuana by Local Governments, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sen. Jim Smallwood and Rep. Dan Pabon. The bill imposes general taxation requirements on local government.
  • SB 18-267 – “Concerning the Creation of the Justice Center Maintenance Fund,” by Sens. John Kefalas & Randy Baumgardner and Reps. Jon Becker & Chris Hansen. The bill creates the justice center maintenance fund that consists of money appropriated by the general assembly to the maintenance fund from the justice center cash fund to be used for controlled maintenance needs of the Ralph L. Carr Colorado judicial center.
  • SB 18-269 – “Concerning Providing Funding for Local Education Providers to Implement School Security Improvements to Prevent Incidences of School Violence, and, in Connection Therewith, Creating the School Security Disbursement Program,” by Sens. Tim Neville & Dominick Moreno and Reps. Patrick Neville & Jeff Bridges. The bill creates the school security disbursement program in the department of public safety. A school district, charter school, institute charter school, or board of cooperative services may apply for a disbursement by submitting an application to the department. A disbursement recipient may use the money for one or more of the purposes specified in the bill, which include building improvements to enhance security and training for school personnel.
  • SB 18-280 – “Concerning a Transfer from the General Fund to the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Cash Fund to be Allocated to the Programs, Services, and Funds that Currently Receive Tobacco Litigation Settlement Money,” by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. The bill requires the state treasurer to transfer $19,965,068 from the general fund to the tobacco litigation settlement cash fund on July 1, 2018. This money is allocated for the 2018-19 fiscal year to the programs, services, and funds that receive tobacco litigation settlement money to supplement the allocation of settlement money that those programs, services, and funds will otherwise receive.
  • HB 18-1042 – “Concerning the Creation of a Program to Authorize Private Providers to Register Commercial Vehicles as Class A Personal Property, and, in Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing an Appropriation,” by Reps. Jon Becker & Joann Ginal and Sens. Ray Scott & Rachel Zenzinger. The bill creates the expedited registration program. The program authorizes the department of revenue to promulgate rules authorizing private providers to register interstate commercial vehicles. The provider may collect and retain a convenience fee.
  • HB 18-1077 – “Concerning the Penalty for a Person who Commits Burglary to Acquire Firearms, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Reps. Larry Liston & Donald Valdez and Sens. Leroy Garcia & Ray Scott. In current law, second degree burglary is a class 4 felony, but it is a class 3 felony under 2 specified circumstances. The bill designates a third type of second degree burglary as a class 3 felony: that is, a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of one or more firearms or ammunition.
  • HB 18-1146 – “Concerning the Continuation Under the Sunset Law of the Measurement Standards Law,” by Rep. Jovan Melton and Sen. Don Coram. The bill implements the recommendations of the department of regulatory agencies in its sunset review and report on the measurement standards law by extending the law for 15 years.
  • HB 18-1156 – “Concerning Limitations on Penalties for Truancy,” by Rep. Pete Lee and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill clarifies in the Colorado Children’s Code and in the ‘School Attendance Law of 1963’ that a ‘delinquent act’ does not include truancy or habitual truancy. A child who is habitually truant and who refuses to follow a plan to rehabilitate his or her truancy may be subject to various sanctions by the court in a truancy proceeding.
  • HB 18-1200 – “Concerning Cybercrime, and, in Connection Therewith, Criminalizing Using a Computer to Engage in Prostitution of a Minor, Criminalizing Skimming Payment Cards, Making Changes to the Penalty Structure for Cybercrime, and Making an Appropriation,” by Reps. Paul Lundeen & Alec Garnett and Sens. Rhonda Fields & Don Coram. The bill changes the name of the crime computer crime to cybercrime. The bill makes soliciting, arranging, or offering to arrange a situation in which a minor may engage in prostitution, by means of using a computer, computer network, computer system, or any part thereof, a cybercrime.
  • HB 18-1218 – “Concerning the Definition of a Charitable Organization for Purposes of State Sales and Use Tax, and, in Connection Therewith, Removing the Limitation that a Veterans’ Organization Only Gets the Charitable Organization Exemption for Purposes of Sponsoring a Special Event, Meeting, or Other Function in the State, So Long as Such Event, Meeting, or Function is Not Part of the Organization’s Regular Activities in the State,” by Reps. Terri Carver & Jovan Melton and Sens. Nancy Todd & Larry Crowder. The bill makes state law consistent with federal law and will treat veterans’ organizations registered under section 501 (c)(19) of the federal internal revenue code the same way as veterans’ organizations registered under section 501 (c)(3) of the federal internal revenue code.
  • HB 18-1234 – “Concerning Clarification of the Laws Governing Simulated Gambling Activity,” by Reps. KC Becker & Paul Lundeen and Sen. Kent Lambert. The bill amends the definitions of key terms such as ‘gambling’, ‘prize’, and ‘simulated gambling device’ as used in the criminal statutes governing simulated gambling devices and specifies that unlawful offering of a simulated gambling device occurs if a person receives payment indirectly or in a nonmonetary form for use of a simulated gambling device.
  • HB 18-1302 – “Concerning the Allowance of the Department of Public Health and Environment to Waive Certification Requirements for Toxicology Laboratories that have been Accredited by an Entity Using Recognized Forensic Standards,” by Reps. Joann Ginal & Lois Landgraf and Sen. Vicki Marble. Current law allows the department of public health and environment to waive certain certification requirements for toxicology laboratories that are accredited by the American board of forensic toxicology or the international standards organization. The bill changes the waiver requirement to allow the department to waive certification requirements if the laboratory is accredited by an entity using nationally or internationally recognized forensic standards.
  • HB 18-1303 – “Concerning Exemption of Nonprofit Youth Sports Organization Coaches from the ‘Colorado Employment Security Act,'” by Reps. Cole Wist & Alec Garnett and Sen. Jack Tate. The bill exempts from the definition of ’employment’ under the ‘Colorado Employment Security Act’ nonprofit youth sports organization coaches if there is a written agreement between the coach and the organization that meets certain requirements, including a statement that the coach is an independent contractor.
  • HB 18-1313 – “Concerning the Allowance of a Pharmacist to Serve as a Practitioner under Certain Circumstances,” by Reps. Joann Ginal & Jon Becker and Sens. Irene Aguilar & Kevin Priola. The bill clarifies that a licensed and qualified pharmacist may serve as a practitioner and prescribe over-the-counter medication under the ‘Colorado Medical Assistance Act’ and a statewide drug therapy protocol pursuant to a collaborative pharmacy practice agreement.
  • HB 18-1314 – “Concerning Prohibiting the Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems to Obstruct Public Safety Operations,” by Reps. Joann Ginal & Polly Lawrence and Sen. John Cooke. The bill states that, as used in the existing criminal offense of obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer, the term ‘obstacle’ includes an unmanned aircraft system.
  • HB 18-1335 – “Concerning the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, and, in Connection Therewith, Establishing Eligibility Requirements for All Counties and Creating a New Formula to Determine the Amount of Block Grants to Counties,” by Rep. Dave Young and Sen. Kevin Lundberg. For providers under the Colorado child care assistance program, the bill requires the state department of human services, in consultation with the counties, annually to contract for a market rate study of provider rates for each county.
  • HB 18-1342 – “Concerning a Requirement that a Common Interest Community Created in Colorado Before July 1, 1992, Comply with a Provision of the ‘Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act’ that Allows a Majority of the Unit Owners in a Common Interest Community to Veto a Budget Proposed by the Executive Board of the Common Interest Community,” by Rep. Jovan Melton and Sen. Nancy Todd. The bill requires a common interest community that predates the Act to allow its unit owners to veto, by majority vote, a budget proposed by the common interest community’s executive board; except that the bill does not apply to a common interest community that predates the Act if the common interest community’s declaration sets a maximum assessment amount or provides a limit on the amount that the common interest community’s annual budget may be increased.
  • HB 18-1350 – “Concerning the Sales and Use Tax Treatment of Equipment Used to Manufacture New Metal Stock from Scrap or End-of-Life-Cycle Metals, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Rep. Tracy Kraft-Tharp and Sen. Kevin Priola. Purchases of machinery or machine tools to be used in Colorado directly and predominantly in manufacturing tangible personal property are currently exempt from state sales and use tax. Manufacturing is currently defined to include the processing of recovered materials. The bill expands the definition of recovered materials to include materials that have been derived from scrap metal or end-of-life-cycle metals for remanufacturing, reuse, or recycling into new metal stock that meets applicable standards for metal commodities sales.
  • HB 18-1363 – “Concerning Legislative Recommendations of the Child Support Commission, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Reps. Jonathan Singer & Lois Landgraf and Sen. Larry Crowder. The bill implements several recommendations from the child support commission.
  • HB 18-1373 – “Concerning the Use of the State Telecommunications Network by Private Entities Through Public-Private Partnerships, and, in Connection Therewith, Relocating Laws Related to the State Telecommunications Network from the Department of Public Safety’s Statutes to the Statutes Regarding Telecommunications Coordination within State Government,” by Reps. Jon Becker & Chris Hansen and Sens. Randy Baumgardner & John Kefalas. The bill authorizes private entities to use the state telecommunications network through public-private partnerships considered, evaluated, and accepted by the chief information officer and relocates laws related to the state telecommunications network from the department of public safety’s statutes to the statutes regarding telecommunications coordination within state government.
  • HB 18-1402 – “Concerning Authorization for the State Treasurer to Invest State Money in Investment Grade Securities Issued by Sovereign, National, and Supranational Entities,” by Reps. Polly Lawrence & Dave Young and Sens. Bob Gardner & Angela Williams. The bill authorizes the state treasurer to invest state money in securities issued by a sovereign, national, or supranational entity that are rated at least investment grade by a nationally recognized rating organization.
  • HB 18-1405 – “Concerning an Exception from the Mandatory Reporting Requirements for Persons Providing Legal Assistance to Area Agencies on Aging,” by Rep. Pete Lee and Sen. Bob Gardner. Under current law, staff, and staff of contracted providers, of area agencies on aging are mandatory reporters of the mistreatment of an at-risk elder or an at-risk adult with an intellectual and developmental disability. The bill creates a mandatory reporter exception for attorneys at law providing legal assistance to individuals pursuant to a contract with an area agency on aging, the staff of such attorneys at law.
  • HB 18-1410 – “Concerning Measures to Address Prison Population Increases,” by Reps. Pete Lee & Leslie Herod and Sens. Kevin Lundberg & Daniel Kagan. The bill requires the department of corrections to track the prison bed vacancy rate in both correctional facilities and state-funded private contract prison beds on a monthly basis. If the vacancy rate falls below 2% for 30 consecutive days, the department shall notify the governor, the joint budget committee, the parole board, each elected district attorney, the chief judge of each judicial district, the state public defender, and the office of community corrections in the department of public safety.
  • HB 18-1421 – “Concerning the Procurement Process for Major Information Technology Projects Undertaken by State Agencies, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Rep. Bob Rankin and Sens. Kent Lambert & Jack Tate. The bill requires internal process changes in connection with the procurement process for major information technology (IT) projects as specified.
  • HB 18-1422 – “Concerning Requirements for Marijuana Testing Facilities,” by Rep. Matt Gray and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill requires medical and retail marijuana testing facilities to be accredited pursuant to the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 17025:2005 standard by a body that is itself recognized by the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation by January 1, 2019.
  • HB 18-1429 – “Concerning the Exemption of the Workers’ Compensation Cash Fund from the Maximum Reserve,” by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Kent Lambert. Prior to July 1, 2017, the workers’ compensation cash fund was exempt from the maximum reserve for a cash fund, which limits the year-end uncommitted reserves in a cash fund to 16.5% of the amount expended from the cash fund during the fiscal year. The bill once again exempts the workers’ compensation cash fund from the maximum reserve.
  • HB 18-1437 – “Concerning Eliminating the Requirement that a Person who Participates in College-level Academic Programs through the Correctional Education Program in the Department of Corrections must Bear Entirely the Costs Associated with such Programs,” by Rep. Leslie Herod and Sen. Tim Neville. Under current law, the correctional education program in the department of corrections is required to provide every person in a correctional facility who demonstrates college-level aptitudes with the opportunity to participate in college-level academic programs that may be offered within the correctional facility. The bill removes this stipulation concerning costs and states instead that such costs may be borne through private, local, or federally funded gifts, grants, donations, or scholarships, or by such persons themselves, or through any combination of such funding.

For a list of the governor’s 2018 legislative decisions, click here.

Bills Signed Regarding Fiduciary Duties of Title Insurance Entities, Public Official Oaths and Affirmations, and More

On Thursday, March 29, 2018, the governor signed 17 bills into law. He also signed 16 bills into law on Monday, April 2, 2018. To date, Governor Hickenlooper has signed 114 bills this legislative session and sent one to the Secretary of State without a signature. The bills signed Thursday and Monday include a bill concerning the fiduciary duties of title insurance entities with regard to funds held for closing, a bill exempting physicians who treat patients with rare disorders from non-compete agreements, several bills updating outdated statutory language, bills regarding financing broadband for rural areas, a bill requiring reporting when title to a motor vehicle has been transferred, and more. The bills signed Thursday and Monday are summarized here.

  • HB 18-1012 – “Concerning Vision Care Plans for Eye Care Services,” by Reps. Jon Becker & Susan Lontine and Sens. Kevin Lundberg & Irene Aguilar. The bill prohibits a carrier or entity that offers a vision care plan from requiring an eye care provider with whom the carrier or entity contracts to provide services at a set fee, charge a person for noncovered services, or participate in a carrier’s other vision plan networks.
  • HB 18-1091 – “Concerning Dementia Diseases, and, in Connection Therewith, Updating Statutory References to Dementia Diseases and Related Disabilities,” by Reps. Susan Beckman & Joann Ginal and Sens. Jim Smallwood & Nancy Todd. The bill updates statutory references to Alzheimer’s and other dementia diseases and reflects that dementia diseases have related disabilities impacting memory and other cognitive abilities.
  • HB 18-1099 – “Concerning Criteria that the Broadband Deployment Board is Required to Develop with Regard to an Incumbent Telecommunications Provider’s Exercise of a Right to Implement a Broadband Deployment Project in an Unserved Area of the State Upon a Nonincumbent Provider’s Application to the Broadband Deployment Board to Implement a Proposed Broadband Deployment Project in the Unserved Area,” by Reps. Marc Catlin & Barbara McLaughlin and Sen. Don Coram. The bill requires that the Broadband Deployment Board’s criteria include requirements that an incumbent telecommunications provider exercising its right to implement a broadband deployment project for the unserved area agree to provide demonstrated downstream and upstream speeds equal to or faster than the speeds indicated in the applicant’s proposed project and at a cost per household that is equal to or less than the cost per household indicated in the applicant’s proposed project.
  • HB 18-1103 – “Concerning the Ability of a Local Government to Require a Driver to Meet Safety Standards for the Use of an Off-highway Vehicle,” by Rep. Barbara McLaughlin and Sen. Don Coram. The bill clarifies that a local government does not violate state rules if it imposes certain requirements on a driver of an off-highway vehicle.
  • HB 18-1130 – “Concerning Increasing the Availability of Qualified Personnel who are Licensed in Another State to Teach in Public Schools,” by Reps. Dave Williams & Jeni James Arndt and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill changes requirements for special education teacher requirements from 3 years of continuous experience to 3 years of experience within the previous 7 years.
  • HB 18-1137 – “Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports to the General Assembly, and, in Connection Therewith, Continuing the Requirements for Reports by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety,” by Rep. Hugh McKean and Sen. Rachel Zenzinger. The bill continues reporting requirements of the Departments of Transportation and Public Safety.
  • HB 18-1138 – “Concerning Standardizing Public Official Oaths of Office, and, in Connection Therewith, Providing a Uniform Oath Text and Establishing Requirements for Taking, Subscribing, Administering, and Filing Public Oaths of Office,” by Rep. Jeni James Arndt and Sen. Rachel Zenzinger. The bill establishes a single uniform text for swearing or affirming an oath of office and the requirements regarding how and when an oath or affirmation of office must be taken, subscribed, administered, and filed.
  • HB 18-1139 – “Concerning the Removal of Outdated Statutory References to Repealed Reporting Requirements that were Previously Imposed on the Parks and Wildlife Commission with Regard to its Rule-making Authority to Set Fees,” by Rep. Edie Hooten and Sen. Rachel Zenzinger. The bill removes obsolete references to a statutory subsection that was repealed on September 1, 2017.
  • HB 18-1158 – “Concerning a Supplemental Appropriation to the Department of Corrections,” by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Kent Lambert. The bill makes a supplemental appropriation to the Department of Corrections.
  • HB 18-1171 – “Concerning Adjustments in the Amount of Total Program Funding for Public Cchools for the 2017-18 Budget Year, and, in Connection Therewith, Making and Reducing an Appropriation,” by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Kevin Lundberg. The bill adjusts the minimum amount of total program funding specified in statute to reflect this intent for the actual funded pupil count and the actual at-risk pupil count.
  • HB 18-1196 – “Concerning Authorization to Verify the Disability of an Applicant to the Aid to the Needy Disabled Program,” by Rep. Tony Exum and Sens. Nancy Todd & Beth Martinez Humenik. Under current law, in order to receive assistance under the aid to the needy disabled program, an applicant must be examined by a physician, physician assistant, advanced practice nurse, or registered nurse. The bill adds to the list of persons authorized to perform an examination a licensed psychologist, or any other licensed or certified health care personnel the department of human services deems appropriate.
  • HB 18-1233 – “Concerning a Consumer Reporting Agency’s Placement of a Security Freeze on the Consumer Report of a Consumer who is Under the Charge of a Representative at the Request of the Consumer’s Representative,” by Reps. Crisanta Duran & Polly Lawrence and Sens. Stephen Fenberg & Bob Gardner. The bill authorizes a parent or legal guardian (representative) to request that a consumer reporting agency place a security freeze on the consumer report of either a minor less than 16 years of age or another individual who is a ward of the representative (protected consumer).
  • SB 18-002 – “Concerning the Financing of Broadband Deployment,” by Sens. Don Coram & Jerry Sonnenberg and Reps. KC Becker & Crisanta Duran. The bill amends the definition of ‘broadband network’ to increase the speed of downstream broadband internet service from at least 4 megabits per second to at least 10 megabits per second and the definition of ‘unserved area’ to refer to an area that is unincorporated, or within a city with a population of fewer than 7,500 inhabitants, and that is not receiving federal support to construct a broadband network to serve a majority of the households in each census block in the area, and requires the PUC to allocate money.
  • SB 18-028 – “Concerning the Repeal of Certain Requirements for Where a License Plate is Mounted on a Motor Vehicle,” by Sen. Ray Scott and Rep. Jeff Bridges. Current law requires each license plate to be at the approximate center of a motor vehicle and at least 12 inches from the ground. The bill repeals this requirement for the front license plate and replaces it with a requirement that the front license plate be mounted horizontally on the front in the location designated by the manufacturer.
  • SB 18-073 – “Concerning Reporting to the Department of Revenue when Ownership of a Motor Vehicle has been Transferred,” by Sen. Jim Smallwood and Reps. Kim Ransom & Leslie Herod. The bill creates a voluntary program administered by the Department of Revenue that authorizes the owner of a motor vehicle to report a transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle. If the previous owner reports the transfer to the Department, the previous owner is not subject to liability for the misuse of the vehicle.
  • SB 18-074 – “Concerning Adding Individuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome to the List of Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,” by Sen. Nancy Todd and Rep. Chris Hansen. The bill adds Prader-Willi syndrome to the list of persons who have mandatory eligibility for services and supports and also to the definition of an ‘intellectual and developmental disability’ for the purpose of receiving services and supports.
  • SB 18-082 – “Concerning a Physician’s Right to Provide Continuing Care to Patients with Rare Disorders Despite a Covenant Not to Compete,” by Sen. Rachel Zenzinger and Sen. Chris Kennedy. The bill exempts physicians who provide care to patients with rare diseases from non-compete agreements.
  • SB 18-090 – “Concerning ‘Rights of Married Women,'” by Sen. Rachel Zenzinger and Rep. Edie Hooten. The bill modernizes the language in statutory sections concerning the “rights of married women” to be inclusive of married men and women.
  • SB 18-095 – “Concerning the Removal of Statutory References to the Marital Status of Parents of a Child,” by Sens. Rachel Zenzinger & Beth Martinez Humenik and Reps. Edie Hooten & Hugh McKean. The bill removes or modernizes outdated statutory references to a ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ child and a ‘child born out of wedlock’. Colorado only recognizes parentage of a child and acknowledges that the parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents.
  • SB 18-098 – “Concerning Amending a Statutory Provision Relating to Interest on Damages that was Ruled Unconstitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court,” by Sens. Jack Tate & Rachel Zenzinger and Reps. Edie Hooten & Dan Thurlow. The bill amends C.R.S. § 13-21-101 (1), concerning interest on damages, to reflect a 1996 decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court that ruled certain language in that subsection violated the equal protection clause of the constitution.
  • SB 18-099 – “Concerning the Alignment of Early Childhood Quality Improvement Programs with the Colorado Shines Quality Rating and Improvement System,” by Sens. Michael Merrifield & Kevin Priola and Reps. Brittany Pettersen & James Wilson. The bill amends the application and eligibility requirements for the school-readiness quality improvement program and the infant and toddler quality and availability grant program to align with the Colorado shines quality rating and improvement system to streamline the administration of the programs.
  • SB 18-102 – “Concerning the Requirement for an Odometer Reading when a Motor Vehicle’s Identification Number is Physically Verified,” by Sens. Jack Tate & Rachel Zenzinger and Reps. Edie Hooten & Dan Thurlow. The bill repeals the requirement that the odometer be read when a motor vehicle’s identification number is physically verified.
  • SB 18-104 – “Concerning a Requirement that the Broadband Deployment Board File a Petition with the Federal Communications Commission to Seek a Waiver from the Commission’s Rules Prohibiting a State Entity from Applying for Certain Federal Money Earmarked for Financing Broadband Deployment in Remote Areas of the Nation,” by Sen. Kerry Donovan and Reps. Yeulin Willett & Barbara McLaughlin. The bill requires the broadband deployment board, on or before January 1, 2019, to petition the federal communications commission (FCC) for a waiver from the FCC’s rules prohibiting a state entity from applying for federal money earmarked for broadband deployment in remote areas of the nation through the remote areas fund created as part of the connect America fund established by the FCC.
  • SB 18-111 – “Concerning the Removal of an Obsolete Date in the Law that Designates State Legal Holidays,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Rep. Jeni James Arndt. Current law specifies that if executive branch employees who are in the state personnel system are required to work on a state legal holiday, the employees shall receive an alternate day off or be paid in accordance with the state personnel system or state fiscal rules in effect on April 30, 1979. The state fiscal rules in effect in 1979 have been amended numerous times since that time and are no longer applicable or relevant. The bill removes the reference to April 30, 1979.
  • SB 18-121 – “Concerning Certain Expenses Allowed to a State Employee when the Employee is Required to Change his or her Place of Residence in Connection with a Change in Job Duties,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Rep. Jeni James Arndt. Current law allows an employee in the state personnel system his or her moving and relocation expenses if an appointing authority requires the employee to change his or her place of residence due to a change in job duties. The bill specifies that moving expenses, including the reasonable expenses of moving household goods and personal effects and the reasonable costs of traveling to a new residence, are reimbursable in accordance with rules promulgated by the state controller and in compliance with the regulations of the federal internal revenue service.
  • SB 18-125 – “Concerning Fiduciary Responsibilities of Title Insurance Entities to Protect Funds held in Conjunction with Real Estate Closing Settlement Services,” by Sens. Bob Gardner & Daniel Kagan and Rep. Pete Lee. The bill requires title insurance entities and affiliates or subsidiaries to hold funds belonging to others in a fiduciary capacity. ‘Fiduciary funds’ means all funds received in conjunction with real estate closing and settlement services.
  • SB 18-131 – “Concerning Modifications to the “State Employees Group Benefits Act,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Rep. Edie Hooten. The bill modifies several provisions of the State Employees Group Benefits Act to bring it into compliance with current state and federal law and to eliminate obsolete provisions.
  • SB 18-134 – “Concerning the Exemption of Nonprofit Water Companies from Regulation by the Public Utilities Commission,” by Sen. John Cooke and Rep. Jeni James Arndt. Under current law, the public utilities commission is directed to grant simplified regulatory treatment to water companies that serve fewer than 1,500 customers. The bill expands on this concept by deregulating water companies that are registered as nonprofits, so long as their rates, charges, and terms and conditions of service are just and reasonable.
  • SB 18-135 – “Concerning Updates to the Colorado Code of Military Justice,” by Sen. Bob Gardner and Reps. Terri Carver & Pete Lee. The bill updates several parts of the Colorado Code of Military Justice.
  • SB 18-138 – “Concerning Authorization for Retail Sellers of Alcohol Beverages for On-premises Consumption to Sell Remaining Inventory to Another On-premises Retail Seller of Alcohol Beverages with whom there is Common Ownership when No Longer Licensed to Sell Alcohol Beverages for On-premises Consumption,” by Sens. Bob Gardner & Andy Kerr and Reps. Matt Gray & Larry Liston. The bill allows persons with certain retail licenses to purchase alcohol beverages from another retail licensee when there is common ownership between the licensees and the seller has surrendered its license within the last 60 days.
  • SB 18-160 – “Concerning the Authority to Operate Certain Teacher Development Programs, and, in Connection Therewith, Establishing Alternative Licensure Programs and Induction Programs,” by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. Under existing law, school districts are permitted to operate induction programs for teachers, special services providers, principals, and administrators, and alternative licensure programs for teachers and principals, who do not hold professional licenses. The bill clarifies that charter schools and the state charter school institute may operate such programs.
  • SB 18-165 – “Concerning Requirements for Public Administrators,” by Sens. Tim Neville & Nancy Todd and Reps. Faith Winter & Lori Saine. The bill The bill increases the amount of bond public administrators are required to maintain to $100,000 and clarifies additional requirements.
  • SB 18-173 – “Concerning the Ability of Certain Establishments Licensed to Sell Alcohol Beverages for On-premises Consumption that Serve Food to Allow a Customer to Remove One Opened Container of Partially Consumed Vinous Liquor from the Licensed Premises,” by Sen. Bob Gardner and Rep. Leslie Herod. Currently, certain liquor licensees may sell one opened container of partially consumed vinous liquor to a customer if the licensee has meals available for consumption on the licensed premises. The bill expands the requirement to include licensees that makes sandwiches and light snacks available for consumption on the premises.

For a list of all of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2018 legislative actions, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Ordinary Person Would Not Be Aware of Specifics of IP Address and ISP Locating

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Garrison on Thursday, August 10, 2017.

Email—Internet Protocol Address—Internet Service Provider—Expert Testimony—Lay Testimony—Police Officers—Continuance—CRE 702.

Garrison had an affair with the victim’s wife. After the affair ended, Garrison and his wife set up through Google a Gmail account in the victim’s name. Using that account, they sent themselves derogatory and threatening emails. Based on these emails, Garrison and his wife made police reports against the victim and provided related documents to the police. They sought a protection order against the victim and testified about the emails at the hearing. The police filed charges against the victim. When it was later determined that Garrison and his wife had set up the Gmail account, charges against the victim were dismissed, and the Garrisons were charged. At trial police officers gave testimony about Internet Protocol (IP). Garrison was convicted of first degree perjury, attempt to influence a public servant (three counts), conspiracy to attempt to influence a public servant, possessing a defaced firearm, and felony menacing.

On appeal, Garrison first contended that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a continuance of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a continuance, and Garrison was not prejudiced because, as discussed below, he is entitled to a new trial on his convictions related to the IP address testimony.

Garrison also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the prosecution to present expert testimony regarding tracing IP addresses through the lay testimony of police officers. Where an officer’s testimony is based not only on his perceptions and observations of the crime scene but also on specialized knowledge or experience, the officer must be properly qualified as an expert. The concept of an email transmission including an IP address, which can be linked to an Internet service provider (ISP), and in turn traced to the physical location of a particular ISP customer, is not within the knowledge or experience of ordinary people. Thus, because some of the police testimony on direct examination was based on particular experience and specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting this portion of the testimony as lay testimony. The error was not harmless because this information was central to the prosecution’s case on the charges of first degree perjury, attempt to influence a public servant (three counts), and conspiracy to attempt to influence a public servant. The charges of possessing a defaced firearm and felony menacing were unrelated to IP addresses.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Denver Lodger’s Tax Imposes Duty on Online Travel Companies to Collect and Remit Tax

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in City & County of Denver v. Expedia, Inc. on Monday, April 24, 2017.

Statutory Construction—Local Tax Ordinances.

The City and County of Denver (Denver) petitioned for review of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ opinion reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding with directions to vacate the subject tax assessments against Expedia, Inc. and the other respondent online travel companies (OTCs). (See Expedia, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 2014 COA 87.) The district court had largely upheld a Denver hearing officer’s denial of protests by Expedia and the other OTCs to Denver’s claim for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties, apparently due according to Denver’s ordinance imposing a lodger’s tax. Unlike the hearing officer and district court, the court of appeals concluded that Denver’s lodger’s tax article was at least ambiguous with regard to both the purchase price paid or charged for lodging, upon which the tax is to be levied, and the status of the OTCs as vendors, upon which the ordinance imposes the responsibility to collect the tax and remit it to the city; and the intermediate appellate court considered itself obligated to resolve all ambiguities in the lodger’s tax article, being a tax statute, in favor of the OTCs.

The supreme court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that Denver’s lodger’s tax article imposes a duty on the OTCs to collect and remit the prescribed tax on the purchase price of any lodging they sell, to include not only the amount they have contracted with the hotel to charge and return but also the amount of their markup.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

The Ethical Danger of the Microsoft/LinkedIn Merger

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Stuart Teicher’s blog, “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble,” on June 16, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Headshot-Stuart-TeicherBy Stuart Teicher

This week it was announced that Microsoft is buying LinkedIn. There are some hidden attorney ethics implications about which we all need to be aware.

A review of the recent news articles announcing the acquisition reveals that a key motivating factor in Microsoft’s purchase of LinkedIn was access to LinkedIn’s data.  Of course, sharing data is nothing new. But when companies improve their ability to share our data across various platforms, my ears perk up. Not just because it’s creepy or because of obvious privacy implications. The type of data sharing they’re contemplating in the Microsoft/LinkedIn combination makes me worry about confidentiality (and other) issues.

Why they are merging:

According to the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft sees a critical synergy with LinkedIn:

“LinkedIn’s users are, arguably, Microsoft’s core demographic. They also offer Microsoft something it has long sought but never had—a network with which users identify. Microsoft needs to persuade LinkedIn users to adopt that identity, and use it across as many Microsoft products as possible.

Access to those users, as well as the enormous amounts of data they throw off, could yield insights and products within Microsoft that allow it to monetize its investment in LinkedIn in ways that the professional networking site might not be able to. [Microsoft CEO] Mr. Nadella already has mentioned a few of these, including going into a sales meeting armed with the bios of participants, and getting a feed of potential experts from LinkedIn whenever Office notices you’re working on a relevant task.“

In other words, Microsoft wants to have your Outlook and other Microsoft software products speak to your LinkedIn profile. The intersection of that data is valuable—various sellers of products and services would be willing to pay for it.

It appears that Microsoft wants to be able to read through the work we do on their products like Word, review our upcoming appointments in our Outlook calendar, search for keywords in our emails, and then find connections with people with our LinkedIn connections. That’s what they are searching for—connections they could monetize.

For instance, let’s say accountant X has an Outlook Calendar appointment which sets a meeting with “Charles McKenna of Account-Soft Corp.” Microsoft could then search LinkedIn and it would learn that McKenna works for a company that sells workflow management software. Well, now Microsoft knows the accountant is in the market for workflow management software… and they could sell that knowledge to other software companies who would then direct solicitations in the accountant’s direction. That’s an annoyance for an accountant, but a potential ethics disaster if he/she were a lawyer.

Basic issue, Confidentiality:

If Microsoft scours our Word documents and emails, then there could be Rule 1.6 confidentiality issues.  That’s so obvious that we don’t need to spend time talking about it now. I think the more unusual issues come from the Calendar function…

If they leverage the data in our Calendar, it could reveal our client relationships:

The substance of what we learn from the client is confidential, but so is the very existence of the lawyer-client relationship. Will the integration of these platforms make it easier for people to figure out who we represent?

Think about how much information Microsoft could piece together from our Calendar. They might see a potential client introduction (which lists Pete Smith as present), a court appearance (which lists Pete Smith as present), and a meeting for settlement purposes (which lists Pete Smith as present). It’s not going to be too tough for the Microsoft bots to figure out that Pete Smith is your client.

If they leverage data in our Calendar, it could reveal key substantive information that could harm the client:

If Microsoft looks at our Calendar they can see that we’re heading to a particular locale. They might then cross reference our LinkedIn connections and send a message to one of them that says something like, “Your connection Bruce Kramer is going to Chicago next week. Why don’t you look him up?”

That heads-up might give someone the incentive to look into our movements a bit more… and who knows what they could find. What if that info was given to a real estate agent that we know in Chicago… and maybe we are representing a successful land owner… and we’re clandestinely scouting a real estate purchase because we don’t want people to figure out that we’re there on behalf of our deep-pocketed client… because if they know, the purchaser will run up the price. That LinkedIn message tipped off the real estate agent and it could cost the client a lot of money.

If they leverage data in our Calendar, it could end up revealing a misrepresentation:

Imagine that Client A asks you to accompany them to a meeting in Los Angeles. You tell her that you can’t go because you’ll be on vacation on the East Coast. That’s not true, however. The truth is that you’ve already scheduled a meeting with a potentially new client in Los Angeles. You didn’t want Client A to know that you’d be in town because you didn’t want to have to shuffle between clients—it would just be too much work. You could have told Client A that you’d be in town but you didn’t have time to meet her, but you thought she’d be insulted. It was just easier to say you’re far away and be done with it.

Later, Client A gets a LinkedIn message that says, “Your Connection Mary Smith is going to be in Los Angeles next weekend… send her a message and try to link up!” Do you know what you are now? Busted. And not only do you have egg on your face, but you may also have committed an ethical violation.

Is the white lie that you told your client going to be considered a misrepresentation or deception per Rule 8.4(c)? That rule states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation…”

I know what you’re thinking… it was a half-truth. No harm no foul. Well, I searched the ethics code, and I didn’t find the term “white lie” or “half-truth” anywhere in the code. You should also note that Rule 8.4(c) does not require that the misrepresentation be “material.” It doesn’t allow you to lie about inconsequential things and there’s no modifying language- it just says that you can’t lie or deceive.

These are just a few issues. Some of these are clear ethics concerns, others are more akin to PR nightmares. Are they so terrible that we all need to get off LinkedIn right away? That might be a bit premature. After all, they only just announced the merging of the platforms- they haven’t actually done anything yet. I don’t know what dangers will actually be realized, or whether any dangers will be realized at all. What I do know is that part of being a responsible attorney in this technological age is to be diligent in thinking about these issues. As lawyers practicing in an ever-changing technological environment, we need to be aware of the potential problems. Keep your eye on the news and stay abreast about the details regarding the integration of these two platforms. Then, if you determine that you need to act, do so.  That way we are “keep[ing] abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” Comment [8], Rule 1.1.

Save the Date!

Stuart Teicher will be at the CLE offices on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to present two ethics programs. Registration is not yet open, but mark your calendars and don’t miss these important programs.

 

Stuart I. Teicher, Esq. is a professional legal educator who focuses on ethics law and writing instruction. A practicing attorney for over two decades, Stuart’s career is now dedicated to helping fellow attorneys survive the practice of law and thrive in the profession. Stuart teaches seminars and provides in-house training to law firms/legal departments.

Stuart helps attorneys get better at what they do (and enjoy the process) through his entertaining and educational CLE Performances. His expertise is in “Technethics,” a term Stuart coined that refers to the ethical issues in social networking and other technology. He also speaks about “Practical Ethics”– those lessons hidden in the ethics rules that enhance a lawyer’s practice. Stuart writes the blog “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble.”

Mr. Teicher is a Supreme Court appointee to the New Jersey District Ethics Committee where he investigates and prosecutes grievances filed against attorneys, an adjunct Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey where he teaches Professional Responsibility and an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick where he teaches undergraduate writing courses. He is a member of the bar in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2014, he authored the book Navigating the Legal Ethics of Social Media and Technology (Thomson Reuters).

Colorado Court of Appeals: Dormant Commerce Clause Not Violated Where Defendant Interacted with Colorado Investigator

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Helms on Thursday, June 16, 2016.

Internet Child Exploitation Statute—CRE 404(b)—Bad Act Evidence—Evidence—Probation Revocation.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of Internet exploitation of a child. He was sentenced to 10 years of supervised probation on each count. The district court later revoked his probation when he failed to register as a sex offender and resentenced him for an indeterminate term of two years to life.

On appeal, defendant contended that the Internet child exploitation statute, C.R.S. § 18-3-405(1)(a), is facially unconstitutional for several reasons. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The statute does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution because the statute is limited to situations in which the criminal conduct occurs either wholly or partially in Colorado. It also does not violate the First Amendment because it is not overly broad, and it does not violate defendant’s constitutional right to due process because it is not vague.

Defendant also contended that the district court erred by admitting a statement he made, arguing that it was CRE 404(b) bad act evidence. However, the statement was not admitted as evidence of defendant’s bad character; rather, it directly rebutted his defense. Therefore, the district court did not err by admitting this evidence.

Defendant additionally argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. He argued that his conviction for count one was not supported by sufficient evidence because the jury was instructed that he must have committed the crime in Colorado to be guilty of child exploitation. However, the sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the elements of the offense rather than jury instructions. The child exploitation statute does not require that the actor be in Colorado at the time of the criminal communication. As to the second count, defendant’s conduct did not meet the requirements of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, this conviction was reversed.

Defendant also argued that the district court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after a witness testified about an inadmissible matter. Defense counsel elicited the statement from the witness, and although it was prejudicial, the court offered to give a curative instruction to the jury, which defense counsel declined. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a mistrial.

Lastly, defendant contended that the district court’s revocation of his probation must be reversed because the district court did not adhere to the applicable statutory requirements. There was not sufficient evidence that defendant waived his right to be advised by the court through counsel, or that he was advised of potential penalties before the probation revocation hearing. In addition, the district court revoked defendant’s probation without obtaining and considering treatment and monitoring recommendations from defendant’s probation officer or treatment provider, as required by statute. Therefore, the district court’s revocation of defendant’s probation was reversed.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

The Internet of Things: A Disrupter? Precarious? The Jetsons?

IP_2016By John Ritsick, Esq.

Predictions about how much and how quickly technology will change the world can vary – we all can ask “where’s my flying car” now that the 2015 of “Back to the Future has come and gone and we still don’t have those flying cars. But the impact of The Internet of Things (IoT) will be significant, and the scope and scale can be mind-boggling. The IoT is the network of physical objects—devices, vehicles, buildings, and other items—embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity that enables these objects to collect and exchange data. I work in the manufacturing industry and see the changes coming before they are close to the market, and I am constantly blown away by what we know is coming.

Nearly every industry and every type of tangible item is a potential participant in the IoT. The industries affected include automotive, transportation, city infrastructure, homes and household goods, retail stores—virtually all industries can potentially be incorporated into the IoT. Self-driving cars necessarily mean the car is connected to the Internet and is “smart” technology, but a self-driving car also means that other cars and vehicles are connected, that the roads the cars drive on and traffic systems are part of a larger environment, and that our emergency response services are connected as well.

I’ll be moderating a talk on the IoT at the 2016 Rocky Mountain IP & Technology conference in Denver in June. My colleague at Flex, Kenji Takeuchi, leads Products and Technology Management for the Flex’s Connected Living and IoT Software business. He’ll be talking about this subject and other thoughts on where technology is headed—it will be an insightful look into the future!

John Ritsick, Esq., is in-house counsel at Flex, a global leader In the categories of design, manufacturing, distribution, and aftermarket services. Find out more about the 2016 IP & Technology Institute at the links below.

 

CLE Program — 14th Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Institute

This CLE presentation will occur on June 2-3, 2016, at the Westin Westminster Hotel. Register online or call (303) 860-0608.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here: CDMP3

Two Law Firm Hacks Should Be Scaring Your Firm Into Action

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Stuart Teicher’s blog, “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble,” on April 4, 2016. Reprinted with permission.

Headshot-Stuart-TeicherBy Stuart Teicher

For years people have been warning that law firms of all sizes are major targets for cyber-criminals. If your firm didn’t take that seriously before, then there are two major hackings last week that should get your attention.

The Wall Street Journal reported that cyber criminals breached Cravath, Weil Gotshal, and several other unnamed firms (read the article here: http://on.wsj.com/1MzYlN2). The paper states that it’s not clear what (or whether) information was taken, but the focus is on the possibility of confidential information being stolen for purposes of insider trading.

The other major breach is so big that it has its own hashtag— search Twitter for #PanamaPapers or #PanamaLeaks.  According to Reuters, the target was a law firm in Panama who specializes in setting up offshore companies. Hackers stole data from the firm and provided that data to journalists who promptly revealed it to the public (read the article here: http://reut.rs/25GEy4X). The information allegedly reveals a network of offshore loans. According to the BBC, the stolen data reveals how the law firm, “has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and avoid tax” (read the BBC’s article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35918844). Political figures and friends of popular politicians are allegedly implicated, according to the report.

My concern is not about the obvious political ramifications. My concern is about the ethical ramifications to lawyers. The danger of hacking is real.

No report has implicated any type of ethical wrongdoing on the part of any firm. That needs to be restated and made abundantly clear: there has been no report of any evidence of ethical impropriety by any of the law firms mentioned in the news. I am bringing this to your collective attention because it should serve as a warning. Confidential client information was stolen from that law firm in Panama… which reminds us that we are targets.

All lawyers are targets. Small firms, large firms, in-house counsel, government lawyers, you name it. The bad guys know that lawyers are the custodians of valuable information and they are coming after us in a big way. The message for all of us is clear: you could be subject to an ethics grievance if you don’t take proper steps to secure your clients’ information.

The responsibility to protect our client information is nothing new. However, these recent events require us apply an increased sense of urgency to evaluating our compliance with that duty. Have you, or your firm, taken the necessary steps to adequately protect your clients’ information? Have you considered the fact that bad guys could be targeting you? What steps have you taken to counteract the potential piracy that could be aimed at your clients’ information?

You could be darn sure that someone is going to be asking those questions to the firms that were targeted in the hacks. Maybe you need to put yourself in their position and ask, “how would we fare if that review was directed toward us?”

Our duty of competence requires that we take appropriate steps to protect our clients’ confidential information. And remember that you, as the lawyer, have the primary ethical duty, not your IT people. Furthermore, various ethics opinions have held that, in some circumstances, the lawyer needs to understand the underlying technology itself.

If these issues weren’t on the front burner in your office before, these two hacks should be causing you to shift your priorities.

Quickly.

 

Save the Date!

Stuart Teicher will be at the CLE offices on Thursday, September 8, 2016, to present two ethics programs. Registration is not yet open, but mark your calendars and don’t miss these important programs.

 

Stuart I. Teicher, Esq. is a professional legal educator who focuses on ethics law and writing instruction. A practicing attorney for over two decades, Stuart’s career is now dedicated to helping fellow attorneys survive the practice of law and thrive in the profession. Stuart teaches seminars and provides in-house training to law firms/legal departments.

Stuart helps attorneys get better at what they do (and enjoy the process) through his entertaining and educational CLE Performances. His expertise is in “Technethics,” a term Stuart coined that refers to the ethical issues in social networking and other technology. He also speaks about “Practical Ethics”– those lessons hidden in the ethics rules that enhance a lawyer’s practice. Stuart writes the blog “Keeping Lawyers Out of Trouble.”

Mr. Teicher is a Supreme Court appointee to the New Jersey District Ethics Committee where he investigates and prosecutes grievances filed against attorneys, an adjunct Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey where he teaches Professional Responsibility and an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick where he teaches undergraduate writing courses. He is a member of the bar in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In 2014, he authored the book Navigating the Legal Ethics of Social Media and Technology (Thomson Reuters).

New Legal Technology: Reduced Risk, Increased Flexibility, Automated Systems—Better for Lawyers

tech-lawIt’s estimated that 90% of lawyers use mobile to check email; 34% of lawyers use tablets in the courtroom; 27% of law firms have legal blogs; 10% of individual lawyers have blogs; 48% use a tablet at work (and the tablet is capturing laptop share); 17% use litigation support software; 39% of blogs resulted in clients or referrals; 40% of solos and 30% of all lawyers use cloud services; and 58% use Dropbox to transfer and store files. Technology (including legal technology) moves fast, with new products and updates arriving at a dizzying pace.

Wouldn’t it be nice if this burgeoning technology resulted in less time in the office and an increase in billings? Many attorneys are finding this to be the case. Automating systems and keeping better track of files and cases has actually resulted in more flexibility and peace of mind for attorneys, even those having to juggle more responsibilities. In addition, smaller firms have discovered by using new technologies they are able to better compete with larger firms.

This year’s first Colorado Legal Technology Expo is October 27-28, 2014, at the CBA-CLE offices in Denver. The Legal Technology Expo is free and the place for the technology and legal communities to interact and to mutually benefit.

Not only will there be legal technology companies exhibiting, but short, educational seminars offered on the latest in technology for the legal community. Legal technology tips and best practices will be shared by experts with topics that include: Managing Interruption and Info Overload; Cloud Security; E-Recording; Using the Latest in Technology to Market Your Law Firm; and 5 Technologies Every Lawyer Should be Using Today.

We invite you to drop by, even for an hour or two, to the free Legal Tech Expo. Click here to find out more and to register for the 20-30 minute educational seminars.

CLE Program: The 2014 Colorado Legal Technology Expo

This CLE presentation will take place from Monday, October 27 through Tuesday, October 28, 2014. Click here to register.

 

Tenth Circuit: Special Master Must Employ Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test for Copyright Infringement

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Paycom Payroll, LLC v. Richison on Friday, July 11, 2014.

David Richison, with his niece and nephew, Shannon and Chad Richison,  formed a payroll processing company, Ernest Group, d/b/a Paycom Payroll, in Oklahoma in the 1990s. During his time with Ernest Group, David wrote two payroll processing software programs, BOSS and Independence. He transferred his authorship interest in BOSS to Ernest Group in the 1990s. When the relationship between David and Chad deteriorated in 2001, David moved to Maryland and formed his own company called Period Financial Corporation. At Period, he wrote a new software program based in part on Independence, which he called Period Indy. In May 2009, Ernest Group filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against David, asserting that Period Indy infringed on Ernest Group’s copyright in BOSS. Ernest Group subsequently filed for copyright on Independence, stating that it was a work for hire. By 2011, David had written another program, Cromwell.

In August 2011, the parties settled and agreed to the entry of a consent decree. All of Ernest Group’s claims were released except its claim for injunctive relief based on copyright infringement, and all rights to Independence were assigned to Ernest Group. The partied agreed that the district court should appoint a special master to write a report regarding whether the Cromwell program infringed on either BOSS or Independence, and the district court should decide the issue based on the special master’s report. The parties disagreed as to which version of Cromwell should be used for the analysis, but not which versions of BOSS and Independence. The special master opined in his report, marked “Attorney’s Eyes Only,” that Cromwell infringed upon both BOSS and Independence. The district court adopted the special master’s findings and ordered that all copies of Cromwell should be destroyed.

After the report was filed, David objected to the “Attorney’s Eyes Only” restriction, noting that as the author of all the software in question, he could assist his attorneys in reviewing the substance of the report. Ernest Group opposed the motion, and the district court denied it, stating that David advanced no grounds to support lifting the restriction. David’s attorneys filed objections to the special master’s report, arguing that the special master failed to conduct the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, or at least that he did not document his application of the test. Ernest Group’s attorneys agreed with the objections to some extent and requested that the report be resubmitted to the master for further findings. Before the district court could rule, Ernest Group’s attorneys mailed David’s “highly critical” objections directly to the special master. David’s attorneys called for a new special master, claiming that Ernest Group had irrevocably tainted the master’s neutrality. The district court, instead of resubmitting the report to the special master, called on Ernest Group’s attorneys to offer a more substantive response to David’s critique of the report, which they did. The district court adopted the special master’s report in its entirety, ruled that Cromwell infringed upon Ernest Group’s copyrights in both BOSS and Independence, and ordered all copies of Cromwell destroyed. This appeal followed.

David raised four issues on appeal: (1) the “Attorney’s Eyes Only” restriction should be lifted, (2) the special master erred by evaluating versions of BOSS and Independence that were never registered with the copyright office, (3) the special master’s report was inadequate and the versions were not substantially similar, and (4) a new special master should be appointed if remand is necessary. The Tenth Circuit evaluated these claims in turn. The Tenth Circuit declined to agree with David on the first claim, noting that he agreed to the restriction in a consent decree and allowing David to view the report was not so fundamental of a right as to be unwaivable, and commenting that such restrictions are common in trade secret litigation. For the second claim, the Tenth Circuit similarly rejected David’s arguments, since he impliedly consented to the versions in two documents submitted to the court and his argument was therefore waived.

As to the third claim, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s adoption of the special master’s report. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the special master should have documented his application of each step of the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, which he did not do. The report contained little evidence that the master performed the abstraction test, and in fact the report seemed to deem abstraction superfluous. Because the abstraction test was not performed, the special master’s findings regarding filtration were limited, and his entire analysis was flawed. The case was remanded for more complete reporting by the special master. In his fourth claim, David requested that a new special master be appointed, due to potential bias from the master receiving David’s critique. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, because the parties had agreed to this particular special master, and also noting that it only addressed David’s contentions in this appeal so if need arose for a different special master in the future that claim would not be barred.

The district court’s judgment was reversed and remanded for further reporting by the special master using the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.

Tenth Circuit: FCC Denial of Petition for Regulatory Forbearance Pertaining to Telecommunications Services Was Reasoned and Reasonable

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Qwest Corp. v. FCC on Monday, August 6, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. Petitioner  sought “review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denying Petitioner’s petition for regulatory forbearance pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(a). Petitioner filed a petition with the FCC in March 2009 seeking relief from certain regulations pertaining to telecommunications services that it provides in the Phoenix, Arizona, metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The FCC denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence of sufficiently robust competition that would preclude Petitioner from raising prices, unreasonably discriminating, and harming consumers. Petitioner challenges the FCC’s decision only as it pertains to Petitioner’s mass-market retail services in the Phoenix MSA. The Court denied the petition, finding that the Phoenix Order was a reasoned and reasonable decision.

Law Firms and Small Businesses: Protecting Security Interests (Part 2)

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a two-part series of cyber security articles. Part one can be found here.

Reasonable Contractual Expectations

One of my best contractual stories revolves around a conversation with the president of a local web site design firm – a good friend and one who feels comfortable with being candid with me. During one of his development projects, I offered to do a free security evaluation of the soon-to-be-released web application. His rejection of my offer came with the rationale that if the web application was ever compromised, he wanted to be able to honestly tell the client that, to the best of his knowledge, the delivered web site was secure.

I haven’t the faintest idea of the legality of my friend’s hope for plausible deniability, but it should be obvious that two very poor consequences come out of his approach to security. The first is that his client will end up with an unsecure web site, when they could just as easily have had a product that would have withstood all but the most experienced and persistent hackers.

The second eye-opening realization is that the client never asked about security, and the development contract never addressed security. In this case, the client (and potentially the law firm that reviewed the contract) never included security development and testing as one of the primary requirements of the relationship. A single section added to the development contract might have the effect of preventing a devastating security breach.

A favorite statement of mine goes as follows:

Businesses end up with a lack of security because they never, ever ask about it. 

Almost all web site development contracts include obvious legal details like payment schedules, software ownership, and product specifications. These terms protect the interest of the business as well as the development firm – standard boilerplate.

A well-written contract should also include a requirement that the contracted web site be developed under strict security guidelines (consider OWASP as a source of information) and that a comprehensive third-party security penetration test (Acunetix as one such test) be run and presented before product acceptance.

The additional cost for security-oriented development should be minimal, since a knowledgeable development firm should be adhering to these practices regardless of a request. The third-party security penetration test can be contracted for with one of many firms and should cost only a few thousand dollars.

Again, the role of a law firm in this environment should certainly be the crafting and approval of the basic development contract, but also making sure security validation is a well-defined requirement of the overall agreement.

How to Respond After a Breach

When a security breach does occur, businesses (and their counsel) need to be ready to react thoroughly and decisively. A few of my suggestions for the days, weeks, and months following a breach are:

  • Don’t panic. Carefully consider the nature of the breach, what data (if any) has been compromised and what the business’ next steps should be. A premature release of breach information may cause unnecessary customer panic or, even worse, make management look even more inept when they revise information sent out too hastily. Advise them to take the time to respond with dignity and thoughtfulness.
  • If required, inform the appropriate financial and legal entities as soon as possible. Depending on the industry, there may be strict requirements for reporting security breaches. Your client’s problem will only get worse if they are caught hiding information. Keep in mind that many security breaches become public knowledge as the compromised data is used or sold within the cyber underground, not as a result of company disclosure. As a side note, an embarrassingly large number of security breaches are never discovered by the company that was breached.
  • Inform users or clients and customers as soon as appropriate. There is a line between keeping a company viable and an ethical responsibility to customers. My thoughts on this line are to consider the damage that might be done to customers and think about how you would expect to be treated.
  • Call the insurance company. Depending of the nature of the breach, the business may be covered for some, if not all, of the expenses associated with recovery. Suggest that the business give their insurance company a call. They might also take the time to talk about cyber insurance with their agent – for the next time.

As a legal professional, you should easily be able to see the pitfalls inherent in panic-stricken businesses reacting to security breaches. Legal, financial, and professional stakes surrounding a security breach may be high enough to shut down the business. The correct reaction may be well outside of the expertise of the business, or, even worse, the business may naively attempt to react on their own.

Conclusion

Hopefully, I have provided food for thought on the security opportunities and responsibilities of law firms supporting small businesses and their own technological infrastructure. Obviously, I’ve brought up far more issues and concerns than solutions. My hope is that even a casual discussion of security problems will prepare you with far more knowledge than the majority of your clients.

It’s a mean world out there; cyber crime is an industry run by foreign nationals from countries where cyber criminals are not prosecuted. An industry-accepted statistic is that more than 70% of all Internet web sites contain critical security vulnerabilities. Many of your clients, and your own web sites, undoubtedly are on the wrong side of this depressing number.

One final note to add one more level of additional worry: Web application security awareness has only recently entered mainstream web site development. If your web site or your client’s is more than four years old, not only is it certainly open to a critical security attack, but it is probably a target for even the most amateurish hackers: script kiddies, young kids who hack web sites because doing so is more fun than playing a predictable Xbox game.

Alan Wlasuk is a managing partner of 403 Web Security, a full service, secure web application development company. A Bell Labs Fellow award-winner with 18+ years of experience building secure web applications, Wlasuk is an expert in web security – from evaluation to web development and remediation.

Learn More: Cyber Security/Privacy CLE Homestudy Programs

Is Your Sensitive Data Secure: Cyber Insurance for Your Firm and Your Clients (video on-demand and mp3 download)

Avoiding The Lawyer’s Digital Nightmare: How To Safeguard Your and Your Clients’ Sensitive Information And Survive The Inevitable (?) Security Breach (video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD)

Ethics in a Wild Wired World (video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD)

To Use and Protect: Privacy Basics for Business (video on-demand and mp3 download)