Colorado Legal Ethics
1.3:100 Comparative Analysis of Colorado Rule
¥ Primary Colorado References:
CO Rule 1.3
¥ Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:
1.3:101 Model Rule Comparison
Both Colo.RPC 1.3 and MR 1.3 state in identical language the well-established rule that Ò[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.Ó However, Colo.RPC 1.3 additionally provides that Ò[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to that lawyer.Ó The Committee Comment to Colo.RPC 1.3 explains that this second sentence was added Òin order to establish an enforceable standard as well as an affirmative obligation to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.Ó
The Comment to Colo.RPC 1.3 is identical to the Model Rule Comment, with one exception. Comment [1] to MR 1.3 states that Ò[a] lawyer has professional discretion in determining the means by which a matter should be pursued. See Rule 1.2.Ó The Comment to Colo.RPC 1.3 omits that language.
1.3:102 Model Code Comparison
The Committee Comment to Colo.RPC 1.3 notes that the second sentence in Colo.RPC 1.3 restates DR 6-101(A)(3).
1.3:200 Diligence and "Zeal"
¥ Primary Colorado References:
CO Rule 1.3
¥ Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 31:401, ALI-LGL ¤ 28, Wolfram
¤ 10.3
Virtually no professional shortcoming is more widely resented than procrastination. See Lewis, Ten of the Easiest Ethics Violations for Honest Lawyers, 27Colo. Law. 75, 76 (Aug. 1998). This, in part, is why Colo.RPC 1.3 requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client and prohibits an attorney from neglecting a clientÕs legal matter. The ruleÕs prohibition of attorney neglect is a restatement of DR 6-101(A)(3) which provided that Ò[a] lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.Ó
Attorneys may be disciplined under Colo.RPC 1.3 for a wide variety of misconduct. Some examples include: failing to disclose the names of expert witnesses in accordance with a courtÕs discovery order, see, e.g., People v. Fager, 925 P.2d 280 (Colo. 1996); failing to advise a client of discovery sanctions or settlement offers and failing to prepare a client for their deposition, see, e.g., People v. Holmes, 921 P.2d 44 (Colo. 1996); neglecting two matters which resulted in their dismissal, see, e.g., People v. Calvert, 915 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1996); failing to pay a clientÕs bills from funds created by a divorce settlement and failing to communicate with a client regarding those unpaid bills, see, e.g., People v. Murray, 912 P.2d 554 (Colo. 1996); failing to write a letter on behalf of a client and failing to return a clientÕs phone calls, see, e.g., People v. Regan, 831 P.2d 893 (Colo. 1992); an eight month delay in distributing settlement proceeds and a one year delay in preparing a final dissolution decree, see, e.g., People v. Genchi, 824 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1992); and failing to perform any professional services whatsoever for a client after being retained, see, e.g., People v. McGrath, 833 P.2d 731 (Colo. 1992).
The extent of disciplinary action under Colo.RPC 1.3 varies considerably depending on the seriousness of the violation and the surrounding circumstances. A violation of Rule 1.3 can therefore result in any of the following: public censure, see, e.g., People v. Bonner, 927 P.2d 836 (Colo. 1996) (criminal defense attorney publicly censured for failing to review district attorneyÕs file and transcripts of preliminary hearing); suspension, see, e.g., People v. Paulson, 930 P.2d 582 (Colo. 1997) (attorney suspended for one year and one day for neglecting clientÕs legal matters and failing to communicate with client); and even disbarment when the neglect is serious or coupled with other violations of the professional rules, see, e.g., People v. Wallace, 936 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1997) (attorney disbarred for abandoning client and misappropriating client funds); People v. Hebenstreit, 823 P.2d 125 (Colo. 1992) (attorney disbarred for extensive pattern of neglect and misrepresenting to client the status of proceedings).
1.3:300 Promptness
¥ Primary Colorado References:
CO Rule 1.3
¥ Background References: ABA
Model Rule 1.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 31:401, ALI-LGL ¤ 28, Wolfram
¤ 10.3
See Section 1.3:200. The promptness requirement of Rule 1.3 does not appear to impose a requirement beyond the scope of the diligence requirements. The annotations to Rule 1.3 illustrate the many types of conduct that violate the diligence and promptness requirements.