Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel January 2026 newsletter

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY

Again this year, with the attorney and LLP registration statement, we included a link to an online demographic survey hosted by Survey Monkey. If you have not completed this voluntary and anonymous survey, please do so in the coming weeks as the survey will close at the end of the attorney/LLP registration cycle, which ends on February 28, 2026. Higher participation will allow us to better understand and monitor shifts in the demographics of the Colorado bar.

To complete the survey, click on this link to the online demographic survey

Amendments to the Rules Governing the Attorney and LLP Regulation System

The civil rules governing the attorney regulation system were updated and revised in 2021. Since that time, our office and stakeholders in our process identified issues that needed clarification and further updates. A subcommittee comprised of various stakeholders drafted proposed amendments. The Court held a public hearing on November 19, 2025 regarding the amendments.  The Court adopted amendments to the rules on December 11, 2025, effective immediately.

We have summarized some of those changes below. All of the amendments can be reviewed at (Rule Change 2025(27)).

• The definition of serious crime has been amended to include: any conduct which constitutes unlawful sexual behavior pursuant to C.R.S. section 16-22-102(9). C.R.C.P. 241.
• The Rule of Limitation has been amended to clarify that a request for investigation against a lawyer must be filed within five years of the time that the person or entity making the request for investigation discovers or reasonably should have discovered the misconduct. For crimes other than serious crimes, the Regulation Counsel may not initiate an investigation more than five years after the Regulation Counsel receives notice of the conviction. C.R.C.P. 242.12(a).
• The Rule of Limitation was amended to address reciprocal discipline. It now explains that if the lawyer or another disciplinary authority notifies Regulation Counsel of the reciprocal discipline, Regulation Counsel must file a complaint or stipulation for reciprocal discipline within one year of receiving the notice. If a person other than the lawyer or the other disciplinary authority notifies Regulation Counsel of the reciprocal discipline, Regulation Counsel must file a complaint or stipulation for reciprocal discipline within five years of the report. C.R.C.P. 242.12(b).
• The Rule of Limitation also now states it is an affirmative defense and the lawyer asserting this defense bears the burden of proving the defense by clear and convincing evidence. C.R.C.P. 242.12(c).

C.R.S. 6-1-737 and Amendments to the Professional Conduct Rules

Last year, in our May 2025 newsletter, we discussed C.R.S. 6-1-737 (HB 25-1090). That law, which is part of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, sets forth requirements for displaying the “total price” (as defined by the statute) for a good or service. Legal services were not excepted from the new law, which took effect on January 1 of this year.

On December 18, 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted amendments to Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5 Fees and 2.4 Lawyer Serving as a Third-Party Neutral to account for the new statute. Comment [3] was added to Rule 1.5 to notify lawyers offering services, including through a fee agreement, that the lawyer may be required to comply with other law pertaining to the offer of services, and cites the new statute. Consistent with the possibility that C.R.S. 6-1-737 or other law may require additional verbiage to ensure compliance with that law, the amendment to Rule 1.5 clarifies that a lawyer’s use of the form Flat Fee Agreement only satisfies the lawyer’s obligation to comply with paragraph (h) of Rule 1.5. Both the form Contingent Fee Agreement and the form Flat Fee Agreement were also amended to include a reference to C.R.S. 6-1-737, so lawyers using those form agreements should also review the statute to ascertain whether additional provisions should be added to their fee agreements. Review the amendments at (Rule Change 2025(29)). Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 2.4 Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral was also amended to add a new Comment [2A] to notify lawyers they may need to comply with C.R.S. 6-1-737 when offering services. This amendment is also available at the same link as Rule Change 2025(29).

Colorado Licensed Legal Paraprofessional Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 was similarly amended to account for the statute. Review the amendment at (Rule Change 2025(28).

Legal organizations, firms and insurers may issue their own guidance regarding how the statute may be applied to lawyers and LLPs. Legal professionals also may wish to consider the following:

• How might this statute affect: flat fee agreements, hourly agreements with a cap on fees, hourly agreements without a cap on fees, and contingent fee agreements?
• Does the statute require any changes to existing fee agreements that became operative before January 1, 2026?
• For the various types of fee agreements, is the legal professional able to identify a “total price,” as defined at C.R.S. 6-1-737(1)(m), for their services at the outset?
• If the legal professional is not able to identify a “total price,” does the offering of legal services fall within the alternative compliance set forth at C.R.S. 6-1-737(2)(b)(II)?
• Regardless of the type of fee agreement used and the approach to compliance under C.R.S. 6-1-737(2), is the agreement in compliance with C.R.S. 6-1-737(3)(b) regarding other types of information that needs to be addressed when costs or fees may be incurred in addition to the “total price”?  For example, are expert witness costs, deposition transcript costs or court filing fees outside of the “total price” under C.R.S. 6-1-737(3)(b)?
• Regardless of changes to a fee agreement that may be advisable in light of the new statute, does the fee agreement continue to comply with all of the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct?
• Does the legal professional’s malpractice carrier provide any guidance on the new statute?

Importantly, the statute does not take the place of Colo. RPC 1.5 or Colo. LLP RPC 1.5 or provide a basis for noncompliance with those rules.

Amendments to the RPCs Address Artificial Intelligence

On January 8, 2026, and effective immediately, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Preamble and Scope, and to Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 Competence. The amendments address the impact of new technology, particularly artificial intelligence, on lawyers’ obligations in the practice of law.  The amendments include the following:

• A new paragraph [20A] in Scope, and
• Revised Comment [8] and new Comment [9] to Colo. RPC 1.1 to address the obligation to maintain competence in light of technological developments.

Review the amendments at Rule Change 2026(2).

Amendments to the LLP RPCs to Conform to Changes to Lawyer Rules

As noted above, the Court adopted amendments to the Colorado LLP Rules of Professional Conduct to cross-reference C.R.S. 6-1-737, so that LLPs like lawyers are on notice of the potential need to change their fee agreements to comply with the statutory requirements that took effect January 1.

Colorado LLP RPC 1.2 also was amended December 18, 2025 to delete language referencing C.R.C.P. 11(b) and C.R.C.P. 311(b), corresponding with the amendment made to the parallel lawyer rule, Colo. RPC 1.2, effective October 16, 2025.  Review the recent amendment at (Rule Change 2025(28). Colo. RPC 1.2’s comments now include those cross-references to the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as additional explanation of limited scope representations.

Preamble and Scope [21] in the Colorado LLP Rules of Professional Conduct instructs LLPs to look to the comments of the analogous lawyer rules for guidance.

LLP UPDATES

In response to the Colorado Supreme Court adopting changes to C.R.C.P. 207.1 to allow LLPs to conduct witness examinations, a number of evidence and trial practice CLEs aimed at LLPs have been announced.  The El Paso County Bar Association is holding an LLP Practicum on the Rules of Evidence February 6.  Information about the course is available in the LLP Practicum on the Rules of Evidence link. CBA-CLE is holding an Evidence and Trial Skills Bootcamp for LLPs on February 20.  Information on the course is available in the Evidence and Trial Skills Bootcamp for LLPs link.

The next LLP exam will be administered November 10, 2026.  Important deadlines and application information are available on the OARC LLP Exam page. The Community College of Denver (CCD) is again offering an Advanced Legal Ethics class (which qualifies as an LLP legal ethics class for exam eligibility) starting August 10.  CCD also is offering courses that could assist LLP applicants or practicing LLPs, including an Advanced Family Law class starting February 23 and an Advanced Evidence for LLPs class starting May 11.  More information is available on the Community College of Denver’s Legal Professional Preparation Courses page.

ABA Formal Opinion 519

On December 3, 2025, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 519 Disclosure of Information Relating to the Representation in a Motion to Withdraw from Representation. The Opinion provides guidance to lawyers regarding what information a lawyer may disclose when moving to withdraw from representation before a tribunal. The Opinion notes at the outset that a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality applies to a motion to withdraw, and therefore, a lawyer may only disclose information relating to the representation “if the client gives informed consent, or the court orders the lawyer to do so, or the lawyer is required to do so by court rules or other applicable law, or there is an applicable exception to the duty of confidentiality.” P.3. The Opinion also notes that neither Model Rule 1.6 nor Model Rule 1.16 specifically authorizes a lawyer to provide information relating to the representation in support of the lawyer’s motion to withdraw, even when withdrawal is mandatory. P.5.  From these principles, the Opinion provides the following guidance:

• A lawyer may support a motion to withdraw with personal information not related to the representation, such as the lawyer’s own medical information;
• A lawyer may secure the client’s informed consent to the disclosures in the motion to withdraw, such as when a client discharges the lawyer;
• An exception to the duty of confidentiality pursuant to Model Rule 1.6(b) and its exceptions may apply, such as under subsection (6), when a lawyer has an obligation to comply with other law or court order. The lawyer will have to determine if the exception applies, and if so, must still narrowly tailor the disclosure so as to protect confidential client information.
• The Opinion also explains three other professional conduct rules may permit or require disclosure: Model Rules 3.3, 1.13 and 1.14.

The Opinion then provides a framework for a lawyer seeking to withdraw: file a motion seeking to withdraw with no confidential client information other than citing “professional considerations” or “irreconcilable differences”; if the court requires further information, the lawyer should endeavor to persuade the court  to rule on the motion without requiring confidential client information, and should assert all non-frivolous arguments for maintaining confidentiality and protecting the attorney-client privilege; if the lawyer is ordered to submit information to the court, the lawyer should do so only to the extent reasonably necessary, and preferably in a restricted way such as seeking in camera review, or submitting information under seal; if the court does not order the lawyer to provide the information but states the motion will be denied absent the lawyer’s disclosure of more information, the lawyer is still bound by the duty of confidentiality. P. 10. In the event disclosure is permitted under Model Rule 1.6, the disclosure should be narrowly tailored. Importantly, the Opinion concludes by noting, “the lawyer’s duty is to preserve client confidentiality, even at the risk that the tribunal may deny the motion to withdraw.” P. 12. ABA Formal Op. 519.

ABA Formal Opinion 520

On January 21, 2026, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 520 A Lawyer’s Obligation to Convey Information to a Former Client or Successor Counsel. This Opinion examines a lawyer’s duties under Model Rule 1.16(d), and specifically a lawyer’s obligations to communicate with a former client or successor counsel regarding material from a file that was not memorialized as part of the file before the representation ended. The Opinion explains that to comply with a lawyer’s duty under Model Rule 1.16(d), “to protect a client’s interests” upon termination of the representation, it may be necessary for the lawyer to convey information that was not recorded in the client’s file during the representation to the former client or successor counsel after the representation ends.  “In many circumstances, prompt compliance with a former client’s request for the client’s file will provide all the material information available because the file is well maintained and complete in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction.” P.1.
The Opinion explains the parameters of this limited duty:

• The information must be necessary to protect the client’s interests, as set forth in Model Rule 1.16(d);
• The request must be for information already acquired in the context of work already performed for the former client;
• The request must concern the same matter as the one in which the lawyer represented the former client.

The Opinion also sets forth the following limitations on this duty:

• There is no duty to provide information that is readily accessible elsewhere or by other means;
• There is no duty to provide information to the former client when the request concerns a different matter from the one in which the lawyer represented the former client;
• The lawyer need not generate further work product to be responsive;
• The lawyer need not make any attempt to retrieve information not already in the lawyer’s possession.

The Opinion also notes that this obligation does not require the lawyer to respond to a request for information by performing further legal services, absent an agreement to do so, and a lawyer communicating with a now unrepresented former client must be careful to explain the lawyer is not providing additional legal services. When communicating with successor counsel, the Opinion cautions that the lawyer should confirm the former client has given consent for the disclosure under Rule 1.9(c), and the lawyer should confirm with successor counsel the reason for the request. The Opinion concludes by analyzing three illustrations to apply these concepts. ABA Formal Opinion 520

ENGAGE WITH APEX IN 2026

As we start the new year, now is a great time to consider ways to nurture your career. J. Ryann Petyon, the Executive Director of the Colorado Office of Attorney Professional Excellence, describes the various offerings APEX has for lawyers and LLPs to support professional development, well-being and innovation at all stages of our careers. This information is available in the Engage with APEX in 2026 article.