Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2015/05/27/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:35:34+00:00

Document:
The first group will feel the energy of personal and cultural transformation moving through themselves and their lives. The second group will wonder what ever happened to the world they once knew. Together, both groups will create what Thomas Kuhn called the state of incommensurability between old and new legal paradigms.
The answer lies in the nature of the law itself. The law is itself a meta-reality — one of those gigantic, archetypal organizing principles of human life. The law enfolds and expresses our humanity, creates cultural and societal and national context. Those who live and work in the law are unavoidably its guardians and tutors, stewards and caretakers. They will create the law’s future, one way or another.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Porter on Tuesday, May 26, 2015.
Double Jeopardy—Noncapital Sentencing Proceedings—Habitual Criminal Statute.
This case addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Colorado Constitution applies to noncapital sentencing proceedings. The Supreme Court overruled its prior holding in People v. Quintana, 634 P.2d 413 (Colo. 1981), based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998), and its progeny. The Court held that Colorado double jeopardy law does not apply to noncapital sentencing proceedings. Accordingly, double jeopardy does not bar trial of defendant’s habitual counts in this case. The court of appeals’ judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for reinstatement of defendant’s habitual counts.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Coffman v. Williamson on Tuesday, May 26, 2015.
Uniform Debt-Management Services Act—Legal Services Exemption—CRS § 12-14.5-202(10).
The Supreme Court examined the legal services exemption in the Uniform Debt-Management Services Act (UDMSA) to determine whether the original version of the exemption applies to Morgan Drexen, Inc., a company of non-lawyers. The Court also analyzed whether the amended version of the exemption violates the separation of powers doctrine in the Colorado Constitution and the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause in the U.S. Constitution because certain out-of-state attorneys may be subject to regulation under the UDMSA.
The Court held that the trial court erred by concluding that Morgan Drexen’s services fall within the scope of the legal services exemption in the original UDMSA, CRS § 12-14.5-202(10)(A). The original exemption encompasses non-lawyer assistants; however, Morgan Drexen’s activity here does not fall within the scope of that exemption because it performs substantive debt-management services without meaningful instruction and supervision by an attorney. The Court also held that the amended UDMSA does not violate the separation of powers doctrine in Article III of the Colorado Constitution or the Commerce and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded that case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and 14 unpublished opinions.
Willis v. Capital One Corp.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 12
 v.