Rule 251.19.Findings of Fact and Decision 
 (a)Hearing Board Opinion and Decision. Within sixty days after the 
 hearing, the Hearing Board shall prepare an opinion setting forth its 
 findings of fact and its 
 decision.  In preparing its decision, the Hearing Board shall take into 
 consideration the 
 respondent's prior disciplinary record, if any.  The opinion shall be 
 signed by each 
 concurring member of the Hearing Board.  Two members are required to make a 
 decision.  Members of the Hearing Board who dissent shall also sign the 
 opinion, 
 provided they indicate the basis of their dissent in the opinion. 
  
 (b)Decision of the Hearing Board.  When it renders its decision, the 
 Hearing Board shall: 
  
 (1)Determine that the complaint is not proved and enter an order dismissing 
 the 
 complaint; 
  
 (2)Enter an order imposing private admonition, public censure, a definite 
 period of suspension, or disbarment; or 
  
 (3)Enter an order conditioned on the agreement of the attorney diverting 
 the 
 case to the alternatives to discipline program. 
  
 The Hearing Board may also enter other appropriate orders including, without 
 limitation, probation, and orders requiring the respondent to pay the 
 costs of the 
 disciplinary proceeding, to make restitution, or to refund money paid to the 
 respondent. 
  
 (4)Within fifteen days of entry of an order as provided in this Rule or 
 such 
 greater time as the Hearing Board may allow, a party may move for post-hearing 
 relief 
 as provided in C.R.C.P. 59.  In the event a motion for post-hearing relief is 
 filed, the 
 Presiding Disciplinary Judge or the presiding officer shall consult with the 
 other 
 members of the Hearing Board and then rule on the motion. 
  
 (5)For purposes of this Rule, the decision of the Hearing Board shall be 
 final and 
 time for filing notice of appeal shall commence as set forth in C.R.C.P. 
 251.26. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSSource: 
 Amended and adopted June 25, 1998, effective January 1, 1999. 
  
  
  
 Editor's note: 
 This rule was previously numbered as 
 241.15. 
  
  
  
 Annotator's note. 
 The following annotations include cases decided under former 
 provisions similar to this rule. 
  
 A disciplinary proceeding is an investigation by the court into the conduct 
 of one 
 of its officers and is neither a civil action nor a criminal proceeding, 
 but a proceeding "sui generis", the object of which is not to punish the 
 offender but to protect the court. 
 People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961), cert. 
 denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 830, 7 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1962). 
  
 The grievance committee of the supreme court conducts the formal hearing 
 on a complaint and makes a report, which sets forth its findings, 
 conclusions, and recommendations.  People v. Van Nocker, 176 Colo. 354, 490 
 P.2d 697 (1971). 
  
 Report and recommendation of grievance committee in disciplinary 
 proceedings 
 against lawyers is advisory, and the supreme court has the duty to review 
 the recommendations and to increase or decrease the sanction imposed by 
 the committee in a proper case.  People v. Susman, 196 Colo. 458, 587 P.2d 
 782 (1978); People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986); 
 People v. Jacobson, 747 P.2d 654 (Colo. 1987); 
 People v. Shipp, 793 P.2d 574 (Colo. 1990); 
 People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859 (Colo. 1991); 
 People v. Larsen, 808 P.2d 1265 (Colo. 1991); 
 People v. Gaimara, 810 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1991); 
 People v. Raubolt, 831 P.2d 462 (Colo. 1992). 
  
 While supreme court has always given the recommendation for 
 discipline by the grievance committee great weight, the court 
 reserves the right to exercise our independent judgment in arriving 
 at the proper level of discipline. 
 People v. Brown, 726 P.2d 638 (Colo. 1986); 
 People v. Anderson, 817 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991); 
 Colorado Supreme Ct. v. District Court, 850 P.2d 150 (Colo. 1993). 
  
 The supreme court's rule is to make an independent decision regarding the 
 appropriate form of discipline, suited to the facts and circumstances of 
 the particular case.  People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027 (Colo. 1987). 
  
 To warrant a finding of misconduct, the charges must be established 
 by substantial, clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. 
 People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961), cert. 
 denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 830, 7 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1962). 
  
 This does not mean that strict rules of evidence apply in 
 disbarment proceedings, although they are frequently invoked to insure 
 a fair hearing.  People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961), 
 cert. denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 830, 7 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1962). 
  
 Evidence taken at civil action that an attorney has been guilty 
 of conduct justifying disbarment is admissible in disbarment proceeding. 
 People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961), cert. 
 denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 830, 7 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1962). 
  
 The finding is not conclusive on the same question.  The finding in a civil 
 action that an attorney at law has been guilty of conduct justifying disbarment 
 is not conclusive on the same question when presented for determination in an 
 action for disbarment.  Notwithstanding the finding in the civil action, the 
 culpability of the attorney must be established in the disbarment action by a 
 clear preponderance of the evidence. 
 People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961), cert. 
 denied, 369 U.S. 819, 82 S. Ct. 830, 7 L. Ed. 2d 784 (1962). 
  
 Factual findings of grievance committee are binding 
 on the supreme court, unless the supreme court, after 
 considering the record as a whole, concludes that the findings 
 are clearly erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. 
 People v. Garnett, 725 P.2d 1149 (Colo. 1986) (apparently overruling 
 People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982)); 
 People v. Susman, 747 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1987). 
  
 Letter of admonition concerning conduct which occurred after the events 
 giving rise to the complaint in the instant case, but received prior to the 
 time the hearing board held its hearing in the instant case, is 
 part of the prior disciplinary record and may be properly considered. 
 People v. Wolfe, 748 P.2d 789 (Colo. 1988). 
  
 Where an attorney fails to comply with condition pertaining to private 
 censure, such failure provides basis for withdrawal of private censure 
 and issuance of public censure.  People v. Moore, 681 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984). 
  
 Conduct found to violate disciplinary rules. 
 People v. Razatos, 636 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1981), appeal dismissed, 455 U.S. 
 930, 102 S. Ct. 1415, 71 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1982). 
  
 Hearing panel may modify recommendations of hearing board. 
 People v. Shields, 905 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1995). 
  
 Modification by hearing panel of board's recommendation of discipline 
 after it concluded a six-month suspension was insufficient in light of the 
 attorney's prior discipline complied with this rule.  People v. Brenner, 852 
 P.2d 456 (Colo. 1993).