On Dec. 2, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado published revised local rules and judicial practice standards.
In the latest round of revisions, the court added pro se parties to the rules for in forma pauperis pleadings; allowed judicial officers to impose additional standards of professional conduct by practice standard or order and stipulated that violating them constitutes grounds for discipline; added a requirement for pro hac vice status revocation reporting; struck the Committee on Conduct eligibility requirement for attorneys that the Colorado Supreme Court confer a license to practice; replaced the clear and convincing evidence requirement for disciplinary proceedings with “a preponderance of the evidence;” and added an annual report requirement.
The first change in Rule 8.1 added pro se parties to the rules for in forma pauperis and prisoner pleadings. The revised rule stipulates judicial officers designated to review pleadings will also review pleadings of a pro se party. The rule notes that the designated judicial officer can get assistance from the Pro Se Division in making their determination.
The updated Rule 8.1 also notes, “The time for filing an answer or response shall be tolled until the designated judicial officer determines that the pleadings should not be dismissed summarily at which time the judicial officer shall issue an order directing service of the order and the pleadings on the defendant(s) or respondent(s).”
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the district court added, “A judicial officer may impose additional standards of professional conduct by practice standard or order, the violation of which constitutes grounds for discipline under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 7(b)(1).”
In Rule 4’s self-reporting requirements, the revised rule states that if an attorney has had a revocation of pro hac vice status by another court, they need to report the order within 14 days of the entry of the order.
In the attorney discipline section and under the Committee on Conduct, the revised rules strike out the requirement that eligible attorneys be licensed by the state Supreme Court.
Under Rule 7, the revised rules list a preponderance of evidence among the grounds for dismissal of a complaint and not the former “clear and convincing evidence” standard. The clear and convincing evidence standard was also replaced with a preponderance of evidence under the section of the rule addressing hearings and orders.
In the confidentiality and immunity section, the court added a requirement for public reporting. The committee is now required to submit “a report detailing the number of complaints and charges filed in the previous year, the violations charged and disposition of each complaint or charge considered and an accounting of the receipt of funds by and expenses of the committee along with any additional comments, requests or suggestions the committee deems appropriate.”
The report will be due to the court by Jan. 10 each year.