OARC Update May 2026

As we’ve previously noted, on January 2, 2024, a break-in at the Ralph Carr Judicial Center resulted in significant damage to the building, including to the 5^th floor where our offices are located. Fortunately, many of the services we provide are available electronically. While we continue to receive mail at the building, when possible, please use email and phone services to communicate with our office. We appreciate your continued patience.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Annual Report

The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has published its 2025 Annual Report. Each year, in addition to profiling the work of the office, we take a closer look at unique aspects of the practice in Colorado. This year, we profile trends in the legal profession over the past decade. Colorado has 48,141 active and inactive registered attorneys as of the beginning of 2026.  Over the past decade, Colorado experienced a 14 percent increase in active registrations (currently 29,731) and a 31 percent increase in attorneys moving to inactive status.  Practice types have also experienced shifts, with in-house counsel growing by 36 percent over the past decade, and government attorneys growing by 19 percent, followed by private practice attorney growth at 15 percent. Within private practice, there has been a decrease in those attorneys who report working as solo practitioners, with that practice setting decreasing 5.6 percent over the past decade. This year’s report also profiles data for Colorado’s 126 LLPs. We see that LLPs are located around the state, with the majority working in a firm setting (small, medium or large), and about 20 percent working as solo practitioners. For more information on these trends, as well as the work of the office, review the 2025 Annual Report. 

Legislation Concerning the Legal Profession

CCPA Amendments Prohibit Certain Types of Legal Marketing

The Colorado legislature passed SB26-174, which amends the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) to expressly prohibit “lead generation marketing,” in which a third party obtains information about potential clients and their legal issues and then sells the “leads” to law firms, attorneys, or licensed legal paraprofessionals (“LLPs”).  Under the legislation, lead generation marketing is deemed a deceptive trade practice, both for the seller and the purchaser of the “lead,” that is subject to the remedies available under the CCPA. 
 
Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 7.2 prohibits lawyers from compensating a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, with certain exceptions.  Comment [5] to Rule 7.2 expressly allows lawyers to pay others for generating client leads “as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer,” and “any payment to the lead generator is consistent with” other rules of professional conduct concerning division of fees, the professional independence of lawyers and communications concerning a lawyer’s services.  Comment [5] further states:   “To comply with Rule 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the referral.”
 
The parallel rules for LLPs provide the same restrictions; pursuant to Preamble and Scope [21] in the Colorado LLP Rules of Professional Conduct, LLPs look to the analogous comments in the lawyer rules to interpret the LLP rules.  Both sets of rules at Rule 7.3 further restrict solicitation of clients through “live person-to-person contact.” 
 
As of May 21, 2026, the Governor had not yet signed the bill.

 
Legislation Addresses Fee-Sharing with Nonlawyers in the Practice of Law

The Colorado legislature passed HB26-1421, which restricts payment of legal services fees to nonlawyers/non-LLPs, with exceptions for wages to employees and ordinary service contracts where payment does not depend on the success or recovery of one or more legal matters.  The legislation also reiterates long-standing legal principles relating to the practice of law in Colorado, including the prohibition on nonlawyer/non-LLP ownership in firms or other legal services organizations.  There are a variety of exceptions under the legislation, including an exception for nonprofit organizations providing access-to-justice services.
 
Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 already prohibits nonlawyer ownership in law firms and the sharing of legal fees with nonlawyers, unless one of the exceptions in Rule 5.4(a) applies.  The parallel rule for LLPs provides the same.  Under both rules, LLPs can have an ownership interest in and participate in fees with lawyers, but they cannot exercise any control over lawyers’ professional judgment.
 
As of May 21, 2026, the Governor had not yet signed the bill.

HB25-1090 Reminder: Review Fee Agreements

In 2025, the legislature passed and the Governor signed HB25-1090, which amended the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and included specific provisions regarding offers for services.  The legal community has interpreted HB25-1090 as applying to fee agreements for legal services.  The new law took effect January 1, 2026.  Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5, as well as the parallel rule for LLPs, continues to apply and sets forth detailed provisions applicable to all fee agreements, as well as specific provisions for contingency agreements (the lawyer rule) and flat-fee agreements (the lawyer and LLP rules).

Relationship Between Statutes and Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct

The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel is an independent office of the Colorado Supreme Court and derives its authority from court rules.  As the Office does not receive its authority from the legislature, it does not bring enforcement actions pursuant to the statutes identified in newsletter summaries such as the ones here. 
 
Attorneys and LLPs seeking to evaluate the impact of legislative actions on their professional obligations may find published articles or online analysis from the legal community or their malpractice carriers.  One case that may apply to the analysis is Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196 (Colo. 2006).  That case featured a challenge to the private right of action in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), as applied to attorneys.  The Court found this statutory provision was not an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers and it could apply to attorneys.  In its analysis, the Court stated:
 
“In the past, we have drawn a firm line in reserving the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings and in the exercise of our exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law.  We have recognized, however, that some overlap between judicial rulemaking and legislative policy is constitutionally permissible as long as the overlap does not create a substantial conflict.”
 
Crowe, 126 P.3d at 206 (citations omitted).  The Court reviewed statutory construction principles as well as preemption and conflict of law principles to hold the CCPA’s private right of action for an unfair or deceptive trade practice “complements, rather than contradicts, this court’s implementation of the professional rules and can not be seen ‘as impinging in any real sense upon our further right to discipline those licensed by us to practice law.’”  Id. at 208 (quoting People v. Buckles, 453 P.2d 404, 406 (Colo. 1968)).

The Court also noted that “the remedies of the CCPA differ in purpose, consequence, and method of enforcement from the remedies employed by Colorado’s attorney disciplinary scheme.”  Id. at 207.  That statute, similar to others discussed here, allows enforcement through the Attorney General or a private right of action.  While the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel does not have enforcement authority over such statutory provisions, the Office highlights the existence of new statutes as well as relevant case law that could affect a legal practitioner’s compliance with their Rules of Professional Conduct through this newsletter and other educational programming.  As always, attorneys and LLPs need to review all relevant rule and statutory changes and controlling case law.

CBA Formal Opinion 151

The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee recently posted a new opinion, CBA Ethics Opinion 151 Restrictive Covenants. The Opinion examines the application of Colo. RPC 5.6 Restrictions on Right to Practice with respect to various covenants that may be included in agreements subject to Colo. RPC 5.6. The Opinion explores Rule 5.6 in relation to the following concepts: covenants not to compete, covenants not to solicit employees, confidentiality agreements, provisions requiring a temporary employer to pay a placement agency a fee if the employer offers permanent employment to a lawyer,  provision requiring disclosure of future employers, savings clauses, differences in types of agreement, and enforcement of agreements that violate Colo. RPC 5.6(a). The Opinion explains these provisions violate Rule 5.6(a) “if they interfere with a lawyer’s exercise of independent judgment on behalf of other clients to an extent greater than that of a similarly situated lawyer who does not sign the agreement.” P. 2. The Opinion also explains that a provision that restricts a lawyer in the practice of law consistent with existing limits on practice (such as restrictions consistent with the requirements of Rules 1.6 and 1.9), is not an agreement that restricts the lawyer’s right to practice law, and therefore, is not violative of Rule 5.6.

ABA Formal Opinion 522

On April 8, 2026, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 522 Lawyer’s Obligation to Disclose Information About Grounds for a Judge’s Disqualification. The Opinion examines a lawyer’s duty to disclose information pursuant to Model Rule 8.4(d) when a lawyer in a proceeding has information that the lawyer knows is likely to give rise to judicial disqualification. The Opinion first considers a judge’s duty to recuse pursuant to Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11. The Opinion provides that subject to a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6, a lawyer who knows information that is reasonably likely to give rise to judicial recusal has an obligation under Model Rule 8.4(d) to disclose that information to the tribunal. The Opinion analyzes various scenarios to illustrate situations where a lawyer may know of a need for a judge to consider recusal, including:  when the lawyer has a prior employment connection with the judge; when the lawyer’s client has made a campaign contribution to a judge’s recent election campaign; when a lawyer learns that co-counsel for another party has engaged a judge’s spouse’s law firm for related consulting work on discovery strategy; and when a lawyer has a business relationship with a judge’s family member. The Opinion explains that the analysis of whether Model Rule 8.4(d) requires the lawyer to make a disclosure, “depends on whether (a) the information is reasonably likely to require recusal and (b) the disclosure can be made without violating the lawyer’s confidentiality obligations under Model Rule 1.6 or Model Rule 1.9.” P. 5. The Opinion explains that even where the lawyer is prohibited from making the disclosure because of client confidentiality, exceptions to confidentiality may apply, including pursuant to Rule 1.6(b)(6), which permits lawyers to disclose information to comply with “other law”, and Rule 3.3(b), which requires a lawyer to take remedial measures when a crime or fraud is being perpetrated on the court during an adjudicative proceeding. The Opinion explains the information that should be disclosed to the tribunal. The Opinion also addresses whether a lawyer has an obligation to report the judge’s failure to recuse. The Opinion explains Model Rule 8.3(b) will rarely require a lawyer to report, but that the lawyer must disclose only if the lawyer personally knows of three things: “(1) that the judge had a recusal obligation under the MCJC Rule 2.11; (2) that the judge failed to comply with that obligation; and (3) that the judge’s failure to recuse raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office.” P. 8.

ABA Formal Opinion 523

On May 20, 2026, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 523 Engagement Agreements Allowing a Lawyer to Withdraw When the Client Fails Substantially to Fulfill an Obligation Regarding the Lawyer’s Services. The Opinion examines a lawyer’s ethical obligations pursuant to Model Rule 1.16(b)(5) which provides, “a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if . . . the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.”  The Opinion notes that the discretion provided by the Rule is subject to Rule 1.16(c), which requires a lawyer to comply with notice to or permission of a tribunal. While the Opinion’s main focus is the concept of withdrawal, the Opinion discusses the benefits for both the client and lawyer of memorializing objectives and understandings regarding the representation in a fee agreement. To the concept of withdrawal, the Opinion explains lawyers may wish to make explicit those implicit obligations that would provide a basis for a lawyer to withdraw (such as the client’s obligation to cooperate with the representation), as well as additional obligations the lawyer may wish to include (such as the client’s agreement to not make an audio or video recording of communications between the lawyer and client). P. 3. The Opinion notes that a lawyer may not require a client to agree to provisions that are otherwise prohibited by the professional conduct rules, other law or public policy. The Opinion then goes on to discuss the lawyer’s analysis of whether the client has failed to substantially comply with an obligation of the representation and noting the lawyer’s need to give “reasonable warning” under the Rule. The Opinion concludes by noting that the provisions of Model Rule 1.16(a) and (b) “combine to establish the exclusive grounds for terminating the representation prior to its natural conclusion,” p. 5, and that a lawyer may not expand those grounds for withdrawal by having the client give permission in advance to circumstances not contemplated by Rule 1.16. Nor may the lawyer mislead the client regarding the grounds or process for withdrawal. 

APEX LAUNCHES NEURODIVERGENT MENTORING CIRCLE

In addition to traditional mentoring models that focus on individual mentoring, the Colorado Office of Attorney Professional Excellence (APEX) is also exploring mentoring models that bring professionals together for collective learning, belonging and ongoing peer connection. APEX’s newest initiative is a Micro-Community Mentoring Circle designed for and with neurodivergent individuals. This Micro-Community was created to foster belonging, practical support, peer connection and strengths-based professional development through guided discussion and community dialogue. APEX is currently seeking mentors to shape and lead this initiative. To learn more, review Micro-Community Mentoring Circle.

REMINDERS & UPCOMING CLEs AND EVENTS

MAY

May 30 Last day to complete CLE make-up plan credits

May 31 Application filing deadline for unsuccessful February 2026 Colorado Bar Exam examinees (July 2026 Bar Exam)

JUNE

June 1 Swearing-in Ceremony at Ellie Caulkins Opera House (February 2026 Bar Exam)

June 12 OARC Update, CBA Board Governor’s Meeting, Denver (Jessica Yates)

June 22 Practicing with Professionalism, CBA-CLE webinar

June 23 Professionalism, Legal Ethics, and How Not to Get in Trouble, 3^rd Annual LLP Practicum Presentation, Denver (Jessica Yates (panelist))

June 25 The Ethics of Pro Bono Representation, Denver Access to Justice Committee and Metro Volunteer Lawyers, webinar (April McMurrey)

JULY

July 28-29 July 2026 Colorado Bar Exam at the National Western Complex

July 31 Ethics: The New Rule 6.5: Make Sure Your Legal Clinic Complies, Colorado Pro Bono Summit, Colorado Springs (Jessica Yates (panelist))