Rule 251.22.Discipline Based on Admitted Misconduct 
 (a)Acceptance of Admission. An attorney against whom proceedings are 
 pending pursuant to these Rules may, at any point in the proceedings 
 prior to final 
 action by a Hearing Board, tender a conditional admission of misconduct 
 constituting 
 grounds for discipline in exchange for a stipulated form of discipline.  The 
 conditional 
 admission must be approved by the Regulation Counsel prior to being tendered to 
 the 
 committee or the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. 
  
 If the form of discipline stipulated to is private admonition, the 
 conditional 
 admission shall be tendered to the committee for its review.  The committee shall either 
 reject the conditional admission and order the proceedings continued in accordance 
 with these Rules, or accept the conditional admission and order private admonition 
 imposed. 
  
 If the form of discipline stipulated to is disbarment, suspension, public censure, 
 or a range that includes any of the former and private admonition, the conditional 
 admission shall be tendered to the Presiding Disciplinary Judge for review.  The 
 Presiding Disciplinary Judge or Presiding Officer of the Hearing Board  shall, after 
 conducting a hearing as provided in this Rule, if one is requested, either reject the 
 conditional admission and order the proceedings continued in accordance with 
 these 
 Rules, or approve the conditional admission and enter an appropriate order. 
  
 Imposition of discipline pursuant to a conditional admission of misconduct 
 shall 
 terminate all proceedings conducted pursuant to these Rules and pending against 
 the 
 attorney in connection with that misconduct. 
  
 (b)Conditional Admission -- Contents.  A conditional admission of 
 misconduct shall be set forth in the form of an affidavit, be 
 submitted by the attorney, 
 and shall contain: 
  
 (1)An admission of misconduct which constitutes grounds for discipline; 
  
 (2)An acknowledgment of the proceedings pending against the attorney; and 
  
 (3)A statement that the admission is freely and voluntarily made, that it 
 is not 
 the product of coercion or duress, and that the attorney is fully aware of the 
 implications of the attorney's admission. 
  
 If the conditional admission is tendered before a complaint is filed as 
 provided in 
 C.R.C.P. 251.14, it shall remain confidential if the form of discipline 
 stipulated to is 
 private admonition and its contents shall not be publicly disclosed or made 
 available for 
 use in any proceedings outside this Chapter except as otherwise provided in 
 these 
 Rules or by order of the Supreme Court. 
  
 (c)Conditional Admission -- Hearing. 
 (1)Procedure.  Within fifteen days of the date a conditional admission is 
 filed, the respondent or the Regulation Counsel may request 
 a hearing before the Presiding 
 Disciplinary Judge.  If a hearing is requested, it shall be set promptly. 
  
 (2)Notice.  Not less than fifteen days before the date set for the hearing 
 on the conditional admission, the Regulation Counsel shall give 
  notice of such hearing as 
 provided in C.R.C.P. 251.32(b) to the respondent, the respondent's 
 counsel, and the complaining witness.  The notice shall designate the date, 
 place, and time of the hearing.  The notice shall advise the respondent that 
 the respondent is entitled to be represented by counsel at the hearing and to 
 present argument regarding the form of discipline to be ordered. 
  
 (3)Complaining Witness.  In addition to the foregoing, the notice shall 
 advise the complaining witness that the complaining witness has a 
 right to be present at the 
 hearing and to make a statement, orally or in writing, to the Presiding 
 Disciplinary 
 Judge regarding the form of discipline. 
  
 (d)Stay of Proceedings.  Proceedings conducted pursuant to these Rules 
 that are pending before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge at the 
 time a conditional admission 
 is tendered may be stayed by order of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. 
  
 (e)Further Proceedings.  If the conditional admission of misconduct is 
 rejected and the matter is returned for further proceedings 
 consistent with these Rules, the 
 conditional admission may not be used against the attorney. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSSource: 
 Amended and adopted June 25, 1998, effective January 1, 1999. 
  
  
  
 Editor's note: 
 This rule was previously numbered as 
 241.18. 
  
  
  
 Am. Jur.2d.  See 7 Am. Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, Section 32. 
  
 Annotator's note. 
 The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions 
 similar to this rule. 
  
 The supreme court will deny attorney's application to voluntarily 
 surrender his license to practice law in the state of Colorado where 
 the gravity of the attorney's wrongful conduct necessitates disbarment. 
 People v. Murphy, 174 Colo. 182, 483 P.2d 224 (1971). 
  
 Surrender of a license pursuant to this rule is not confidential and 
 will be made known to the National Disciplinary Data Bank for dissemination 
 on a national basis to other agencies who license attorneys. 
 People v. Culpepper, 645 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1982). 
  
 Stipulation to 18-month suspension is reasonable and warranted, 
 given the number and seriousness of the charges balanced against the 
 mitigating factors.  People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990). 
  
 Stipulation to disbarment is appropriate where attorney pleaded 
 guilty to felony menacing and had history of discipline.  People v. 
 Littlefield, 893 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Attorney under investigation for misconduct may submit a stipulation and 
 conditional admission at any time but inquiry panel should not normally 
 accept it until the inquiry panel has authorized the disciplinary counsel to 
 file a formal complaint.  People v. Borchard, 825 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1992). 
  
 Mitigating factors warranting suspension for three years. 
 Conviction for distribution of cocaine is "serious crime" as defined in 
 C.R.C.P. 241.16 (e).  However, mitigating factors including personal and 
 emotional 
 problems, full disclosure and cooperation with the grievance committee and 
 the 
 office of disciplinary counsel, and participation in interim rehabilitation 
 warrant suspension from practice for three years.  People v. Rhodes, 829 P.2d 
 850 (Colo. 1992). 
  
 Mitigating factors warranting public censure.  Attorney who 
 stipulated to misconduct admitted to activities warranting public censure. 
 People v. Odom, 829 P.2d 855 (Colo. 1992). 
  
 Respondent's multiple acts of violence are indicative of a dangerous 
 volatility which might well prejudice his ability to effectively represent 
 his client's interests.  Although respondent had taken major steps toward 
 rehabilitation the acts committed were of such gravity as to require a public 
 censure and a three-month suspension.  People v. Wallace, 837 P.2d 1223 
 (Colo. 1992). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendations of disbarment based on 
 conditional 
 admission of misconduct warranted where respondent practiced law while 
 suspended.  People v. Redman, 902 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Also warranted where attorney misappropriated and commingled client 
 funds, failed 
 to communicate with clients, engaged in dishonest conduct and conduct 
 prejudicial to the 
 administration of justice, charged unreasonable fees, neglected legal matters, and failed 
 to  pay funds to which a third person was entitled.  People v. Clyne, 945 P.2d 
 1386 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendations of disbarment warranted 
 where 
 respondent pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and 
 securities fraud. 
 People v. Frye, 935 P.2d 10 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendations of suspension for nine months 
 based 
 upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who 
 was 
 suspended in another state for neglect, failure to communicate, and failure 
 to surrender 
 documents and other client property after termination of representation. 
 People v. 
 McKee, 942 P.2d 494 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendations of suspension for six months 
 based 
 upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who 
 engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's ability to 
 practice law and for violating criminal laws of a state or the United 
 States.  People v. McIntyre, 942 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendation of suspension for 30 days based upon 
 conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for attorney who committed unfair 
 insurance claim settlement practices and tortious conduct in handling insurance investigation 
 of fire claim that he was not competent to handle.  People v. McClung, 953 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 
 1998). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on 
 conditional admission of misconduct was warranted where respondent 
 neglected and made misrepresentations in two separate legal matters. 
 People v. Eagan, 902 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on conditional 
 admission of misconduct was acceptable where respondent was convicted of driving 
 while ability impaired and had also appeared in court while intoxicated on two consecutive 
 days.  People v. Coulter, 950 P.2d 176 (Colo. 1998). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure based on 
 conditional admission of misconduct was warranted.  People v. Williams, 
 936 P.2d 1289 (Colo. 1997). 
  
 Stipulated agreement and recommendation of public censure with certain conditions 
 and monitoring based upon conditional admission of misconduct were warranted for 
 attorney who required that his associates sign a covenant that hindered a client's right to 
 choose his or her own lawyer and which placed a financial hardship upon a departing 
 associate who might not be able to represent the client if the associate's recovery would be 
 limited to 25 percent or less of the total fee.  People v. Wilson, 953 P.2d 1292 (Colo. 1998). 
  
 Applied in People v. Brackett, 667 P.2d 1357 (Colo. 1983).