Opinion ID: 2551368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-Suspension Conduct

Text: C de Baca claims that it was error to apply the Rules of Professional Conduct to him for conduct that did not constitute the practice of law after he was suspended. We have disciplined lawyers for practicing law after an order of suspension, see, e.g., People v. Stauffer, 858 P.2d 694, 698 (Colo.1993), and for misconduct that occurred prior to the order of suspension or disbarment, see C de Baca, 948 P.2d at 4. In this case, some of C de Baca's misconduct occurred after the December 1993 order of suspension and did not itself constitute the practice of law. However, C de Baca's position is foreclosed by our opinion in People v. Dolan, 873 P.2d 766 (Colo.1994). We had previously suspended the lawyer in Dolan for ninety days. See People v. Dolan, 813 P.2d 733, 736 (Colo.1991). Subsequently, Dolan was charged with failing to comply with C.R.C.P. 241.21 regarding the actions a lawyer must take after being suspended, and with violating the former Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to a lawyer), DR 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship), and DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Dolan 873 P.2d at 767-68. In defense, Dolan took the position before the hearing board that the grievance committee did not have jurisdiction over him because the conduct specified in the complaint occurred after he was suspended. See id. at 766 n. 1. We rejected this argument, holding that the lawyer is subject to the jurisdiction of this court and the grievance committee for misconduct committed while the lawyer is suspended. Id. We made it clear that Dolan was not being disciplined in the 1994 case for continuing to practice law after he was suspended. See id. at 769. We stated, however, that we found it equally serious that the respondent took no steps to protect the legal interests of [his clients] as he was required to do by C.R.C.P. 241.21, and then asserted before the district court and the grievance committee that he could take no action on [the clients'] behalf because of the order of suspension. Id. We disbarred Dolan for the misconduct he committed after being suspended. See id. Dolan therefore stands for the proposition that a lawyer may be disciplined for engaging in conduct violating the rules of the profession even though the lawyer was suspended at the time of the misconduct. The Rules of Professional Conduct became effective on January 1, 1993, prior to C de Baca's suspension. C.R.C.P. 241.1(c), 12 C.R.S. (1998) (repealed and reenacted as C.R.C.P. 251.1) provided that [o]n January 1, 1993, and thereafter, the conduct of lawyers licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado shall be governed by the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. (Emphasis added.) Suspension is the temporary suspension by the Supreme Court of a lawyer's license to practice law in this state, subject to reinstatement as provided in C.R.C.P. 241.22(b). C.R.C.P. 241.7(2), 12 C.R.S. (1998) (repealed and reenacted as C.R.C.P. 251.6(b)). A lawyer who is suspended is therefore still a lawyer and is still a member of the bar. See Florida Bar v. Ross, 732 So.2d 1037, 1040 (Fla.1998). A lawyer's license to practice law is revoked when a lawyer is disbarred, however, and that person is no longer a member of the bar. See C.R.C.P. 241.22(a), 12 C.R.S. (1998) (repealed and reenacted as C.R.C.P. 251.29(a)) (specifying the exclusive means by which a disbarred lawyer may seek to be readmitted to the Bar of the State of Colorado). Because he was suspended and not disbarred, C de Baca retained his license to practice law and membership in the Colorado Bar. Other courts that have considered this question have concluded that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended. See, e.g., Ross, 732 So.2d at 1040 (stating that although a lawyer is suspended, he is still a member of the Florida Bar, and, as such, is subject to the same ethical and professional standards as any other member of the bar and the continuing disciplinary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court); In re Chavez, 129 N.M. 35, 1 P.3d 417, 422 (2000) (holding that the Rules of Professional Conduct still apply to a suspended lawyer serving as a legal assistant); In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hereford, 306 Or. 69, 756 P.2d 30, 32 (1988) (stating that the Oregon Supreme Court possesses supervisory powers over suspended lawyers during the period of suspension and that suspended lawyers still have ethical obligations, the violation of which can lead to further sanctions). We conclude, therefore, that C de Baca remains fully answerable for violations of his ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct that were committed while he was suspended. C de Baca also argues that he was not given notice that he would be held to ethical standards after the effective date of his suspension, December 15, 1993. Thus, he asserts that to apply the Rules of Professional Conduct to his actions after that date violates due process. We disagree. As pointed out above, C de Baca retained his license to practice law following his 1993 suspension and C.R.C.P. 241.1(c) provided that after January 1, 1993, lawyers' conduct was governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, C.R.C.P. 241.6, 12 C.R.S. (1998) (repealed and reenacted as C.R.C.P. 251.5) provided: Misconduct by a lawyer . . ., including the following acts or omissions, shall constitute grounds for discipline, whether or not the act or omission occurred in the course of an attorney-client relationship: (1) Any act or omission which violates the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) Any act or omission which violates accepted rules or standards of legal ethics; (3) Any act or omission which violates the highest standards of honesty, justice, or morality; . . . . This enumeration of acts and omissions constituting grounds for discipline is not exclusive, and other acts or omissions amounting to unprofessional conduct may constitute grounds for discipline. (Emphasis added.) This Rule placed C de Baca on notice that his conduct after the effective date of his suspension would be judged against the Rules of Professional Conduct and the highest standards of honesty, justice, and morality. Furthermore, the amended complaint made it explicitly clear to C de Baca, and to his attorney, that he was charged, in part, with ethical violations occurring after December 15, 1993. At no point in the proceedings, through the hearing and the filing of his opening brief in this court, did C de Baca raise a problem with the notice. We conclude that C de Baca, along with other suspended lawyers, had adequate notice that he was required to conform his conduct to the ethical standards of a lawyer. C de Baca next argues that it is unconstitutional to apply the Rules of Professional Conduct to him after the effective date of his suspension. This contention is predicated, however, on the assumption that he no longer possesses a license to practice law, a contention we have already rejected. We therefore also reject his conclusion. Having determined that the hearing board properly considered conduct that occurred after December 15, 1993, we turn to C de Baca's remaining arguments.