Colorado Supreme Court
Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel
Promoting Professionalism. Protecting the Public.
Subcommittee considers conditional admission
The rule would allow a small number of
applicants who may otherwise be denied a license due to recent substance abuse
or mental health issues to be admitted on the condition that they complete a
trial period without recurrence of the underlying issue.
By MATTHEW A. SAMUELSON
Winter 2016
A
subcommittee of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee is studying whether
Colorado should adopt a new conditional admission rule. The subcommittee was
formed in September 2015 to study the issue, and Advisory Committee Chair David
Stark asked attorney Brian Zall, Chair of the
Character and Fitness Committee, to chair the subcommittee. Meetings are held
twice a month.
To
qualify for conditional admission, any applicant will first have to demonstrate
that he or she has the necessary character and fitness to practice law in
Colorado. Conditional admission would allow a small number of applicants who
may otherwise be denied a license due to recent substance abuse or mental
health issues to be admitted on the condition that they complete a trial period
without recurrence of the underlying issue. Conditional admission is not a
method for an applicant who lacks the necessary character and fitness to
practice law to achieve fitness to practice.
In
the event an applicant has a history of conduct stemming from a substance abuse
or mental health issue, the rule would require that the applicant show recent
rehabilitation from the underlying issue by engaging in a sustained and
effective course of treatment or remediation. The treatment or remediation
would have to demonstrate the applicant’s commitment and progress, but may not
yet be sufficient to demonstrate a track record or period of time warranting
full admission. In these limited circumstances, a conditional admission rule
would allow the applicant to be admitted with conditions designed to increase
the likelihood of the lawyer’s continuing fitness and to protect the lawyer’s
clients and the public.
Nearly
half the states have implemented some form of conditional admission. Panelists
at the ABA Conference on Professional Responsibility in May noted that the rule
is intended for limited circumstances. For instance, of the 3,162 applicants
admitted in Idaho since July 1998, just 54 were admitted under the conditional
admission rule. Likewise, Arizona reported that it had only 214 conditional
admissions since 1999.
Matthew A. Samuelson is Chief Deputy Regulation Counsel overseeing the intake division, attorney admissions and mandatory continuing legal and judicial education.