skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Colorado Legal Ethics

1.14   Rule 1.14 Client Under a Disability

1.14:100   Comparative Analysis of Colorado Rule

Primary Colorado References: CO Rule 1.14
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.14, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary:

1.14:101      Model Rule Comparison

Colo.RPC 1.14 adopts MR 1.14, but adds the following new subsection (b): “Not only can the mental, physical or other condition of the client impose additional responsibilities on the lawyer, the fact that a client is impaired does not relieve the lawyer of the obligation to obtain information from the client to the extent possible.” MR 1.14(b) is retained as Colo.RPC 1.14(c).

The Comment to Colo.RPC 1.14 is identical to the Comment to MR 1.14, except that the Model Rule Comment, Emergency Legal Assistance, has been omitted from the Colorado Comment.

The Committee Comment to Colo.RPC 1.14 notes that subsection (b) is included to emphasize that, even if the client is impaired, that fact does not relieve the lawyer of the obligation to obtain information from the client to the maximum extent possible. The Committee Comment also states that the additional subsection makes the Code’s “aspirational provisions” part of the “’black letter’ law of the Rule” and thereby provides “more definitive and appropriate direction as to the nature” of an attorney’s ethical obligations.

1.14:102      Model Code Comparison

The additional subsection (b) is derived from EC 7-11 and EC 7-12 of the Code, which, according to the Colorado Committee Comment, “make clear that a lawyer should obtain all possible aid from the client.”

1.14:200   Problems in Representing a Partially or Severely Disabled Client

Primary Colorado References: CO Rule 1.14
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.14, Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:601, ALI-LGL § 35, Wolfram § 4.4

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

1.14:300   Maintaining Client-Lawyer Relationship with Disabled Client

Primary Colorado References: CO Rule 1.14(a)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.14(a), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:601, ALI-LGL § 35, Wolfram § 4.4

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

1.14:400   Appointment of Guardian or Other Protective Action

Primary Colorado References: CO Rule 1.14(b)
Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.14(b), Other Jurisdictions
Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:601, ALI-LGL § 35, Wolfram § 4.4

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]