Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

TCL > February 2001 Issue > Court Business

The Colorado Lawyer
February 2001
Vol. 30, No. 2 [Page  105]

© 2001 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved.

All material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is copyrighted by the Colorado Bar Association. Before accessing any specific article, click here for disclaimer information.

From the Courts
Court Business

Court Business

Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee

Proposed Amendments to
C.R.C.P. 26. General Provisions Governing
Discovery; Duty of Disclosure
Written Comments Due March 1, 2001

NOTICE

The Colorado Supreme Court will entertain written Comments to the Proposed Amendments to C.R.C.P. 26, General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure. An original and eight copies of written comments are to be submitted to Mac V. Danford, Clerk of the Supreme Court, 2 E. 14th Ave., Denver CO 80203-2115, on or before March 1, 2001.

(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter.

Unless otherwise ordered by the court or stipulated by the parties, provisions of this Rule shall not apply to domestic relations, juvenile, mental health, probate, water law, forcible entry and detainer, C.R.C.P. 120, or other expedited proceedings.

(1) Disclosures. Except to the extent otherwise directed by the court, a party shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties:

(A) [No Change]

(B) A listing, together with a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to disputed facts alleged with particularity in the pleadings, making available for inspection and copying the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, as though a request for production of those documents had been served pursuant to C.R.C.P. 34;

COMMITTEE COMMENT

Documents disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(B) should either be produced at the time of disclosure or, if voluminous, should be made available for inspection and copying at that time pursuant to Rule 34 without a separate request for production having to be filed.

(C) A description of the categories of damages sought and a computation of any category of economic damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying pursuant to C.R.C.P 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, not privileged or protected from disclosure, as though a request for production of those documents had been served pursuant to C.R.C.P. 34; and

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This is intended to clarify that a party claiming non-economic damages does not have to "compute" those damages, even if such an exercise were meaningful or could be accomplished. Other than documents supporting the nature and extent of the injuries suffered, which will still have to be produced, there are not likely to be any useful documents which will explain the "computation" of non-economic damages in any event. Having to specify the precise amount of a non-economic claim at the outset of the case may force a claimant to stick with an unrealistic damage claim (either high or low) or be required to explain on cross-examination at trial why the number has been changed. A change is also included to make it clear that the documents are to be produced without the necessity of a formal written request under Rule 34.

(D) Any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment which may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment, making such agreement available for inspection and copying pursuant to C.R.C.P. 34.

The timing of disclosures shall be within 30 days after the case is at issue as defined in C.R.C.P. 16(b). A party shall make the required disclosures based on the information then known and reasonably available to the party and is not excused from making such disclosures because the party has not completed investigation of the case or because the party challenges the sufficiency of another party’ s disclosures or because another party has not made the required disclosures.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

It is desirable to repeat the disclosure timing in this Rule rather than forcing parties to cross-check a reference in Rule 16(b) to the timing of disclosures.

(2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony.

(A) In addition to the disclosures required by subsection (a)(1) of this Rule, a party shall disclose to other parties the identity of any person who may present evidence at trial, pursuant to Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Colorado Rules of Evidence together with an identification of the person’s fields of expertise.

(B)(I)-(II) [No Change]

(C) Unless otherwise provided in the Case Management Order, the timing of the disclosures shall be as follows:

(I) The disclosure by a claiming party under a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim shall be made at least 120 days before the trial date.

(II) The disclosure by a defending party shall be made within 30 days after service of the claiming party’s disclosure, provided, however, that if the claiming party serves its disclosure earlier than required under subparagraph 26(a)(2)(C)(I), the defending party is not required to serve its disclosures until 90 days before the trial date.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This change is made to prevent a plaintiff, who may have had a year or more to prepare his or her case, from filing an expert report early in the case in order to force a defendant to prepare a virtually immediate response. This change provides that the defendant’s expert report will not be due until 90 days prior to trial—the time originally anticipated for most defending parties’ expert reports in the original Rule.

(III) If the evidence is intended to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under subparagraph (a)(2)(C)(II) of this Rule, such disclosure shall be made within 20 days after the disclosure made by the other party.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

The Rule as originally worded created an ambiguity as to the timing of a defending party’s expert disclosure obligation or whether a defending party might even have to submit two expert disclosures: (1) within 20 days if "contradicting or rebutting" the initial party’s expert disclosure under subsection (C)(III), and (2) within 30 days as the "disclosure by a defending party" under subparagraph (C)(II). This change attempts to make it clear that this subparagraph is referring to reply expert disclosures made to rebut the defending party’s expert disclosures.

(3) [No Change]

(4) Form of Disclosures; Filing. All disclosures pursuant to subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this Rule shall be made in writing, signed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 26(g)(1), served and promptly filed with the court, but such court filings shall not include copies of any disclosed documents or other evidentiary material, or any expert reports or summaries.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

As with discovery responses generally, disclosed documents should not be filed with the court. Only the written disclosure document should be filed so that the court can ascertain that disclosure has in fact taken place. Although lists of experts and their fields of expertise, required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A), must be filed with the court, the expert reports or summaries themselves shall not be filed.

(5) [No Change]

*[section amended and moved to new section (b)(5)]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This subsection is being expanded to include not only disclosures but also discovery responses and will make more sense if it is relocated to a new section of Rule 26. See discussion under Rule 26(b)(5).

(b) Discovery Scope and Limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) [No Change]

(2) Limitations. Except upon order for good cause shown, discovery shall be limited as follows:

(A) A party may take one deposition of each adverse party and of two other persons, inclusive of persons expected to give expert testimony disclosed pursuant to subsection 26(a)(2). The scope and manner of proceeding by way of deposition and the use thereof shall otherwise be governed by C.R.C.P. Rules 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 45.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This change codifies the expressed intent of the Supreme Court’ s Ad Hoc Rules Committee that originally recommended this limitation on the number of depositions. That Committee’s conclusion was that in order to hold down the costs of litigation and because of the substantially increased disclosure requirements for expert reports, depositions of experts should normally not be needed. See "Final Report and Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rules Concerning Case Management, Disclosure/Discovery and Motions Practice in Civil Litigation," January 4, 1994, published in Colorado’s New Civil Rules on Case Management, Disclosure/Discovery and Motions Practice, at vii (CLE in Colorado, Inc. 1994). If good cause can be shown for a greater number of depositions, the trial court can still authorize them in Case Management Orders in appropriate cases.

(B)-(D) [No Change]

(E) A party may serve on each adverse party 20 requests for admission, each of which shall consist of a single request. A party may also serve requests for admission of the genuineness of up to 50 separate documents that the party intends to offer into evidence at trial. The scope and manner of proceeding by means of requests for admission and the use thereof shall otherwise be governed by C.R.C.P. 36.

*[deleted material moved and amended to new subparagraph (F)]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This new, special, and limited form of request for admission allows a party to seek admissions as to authenticity of documents to be offered at trial without having to wait until preparation of the Trial Management Order to discover whether the opponent challenges the foundation of certain documents. Thus, a party can be prepared to call witnesses to authenticate documents if the other party refuses to admit their authenticity.

*(F) In determining good cause to modify the limitations of this subsection (b)(2), the court shall consider the following:

(i) Whether the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;

(ii) Whether the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by disclosure or discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;

(iii) Whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues; and

(iv) Whether because of the number of parties and their alignment with respect to the underlying claims and defenses, the proposed discovery is reasonable.

*[moved and amended from subparagraph (E)]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

Change to clarify that the four factors should be considered for any change to Rule 26(b)(2)(A)–(E), and not just paragraph (E).

(3)(A)-(B) [No Change]

(4)(A)-(C) [No Change]

*(5) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation Materials. When a party withholds information required to be disclosed or provided in discovery by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.

*[moved and amended from section (a)(6)]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

The present Rule 26(a)(6) calls for the submission of privilege logs for documents withheld in disclosure, but not for documents withheld in discovery. This anomaly requires a party to ask a special interrogatory to uncover the basis for privilege claims only for documents withheld during discovery. Privilege logs should be provided for documents withheld under claim of privilege whether the document is called for under the disclosure rule or in response to a discovery request. This Rule closely tracks the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), and, therefore, it is appropriate to give this rule the same number.

(c)(g) [No Change]

ADDITION TO COMMITTEE COMMENT
"COLORADO DIFFERENCES"

Change the citation from C.R.C.P. 26(a)(6) to C.R.C.P. 26(b)(5).

COMMITTEE COMMENT

This change is merely to recognize the relocation of this subsection.


Colorado Supreme Court
Proposed Amendments to the
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct

Hearing to be held Tuesday, April 10, 2001, at 2:00 p.m.

NOTICE

The Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on two proposed amendments to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct suggested by the Colorado Bar Association’s Ethics Committee. The proposed amendments are: (1) add new Rule 1.17(i) relating to an attorney’s sale of a law practice with new language to the comment to Rule 1.17 and amend Rule 1.5 by adding an introductory clause to paragraph (d); and (2) add new Rule 1.15(f)(7) relating to an attorney’s trust account with new language to the comment to Rule 1.15.

The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 10, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in the Colorado Supreme Court Courtroom, 2 E. 14th Ave., Denver, Colorado. An original and eight copies of written comments to the court concerning the proposals should be submitted to Mac V. Danford, Clerk of the Supreme Court, 2 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO 80203-2115, no later than March 30, 2001. Persons wishing to participate in the hearing should so notify Danford no later than March 30, 2001.


Proposed Text of New Rule 1.17(i),
New Language in Comment to Rule 1.17,
And Amendment to Rule 1.5(d)
(New Language in Caps)

New Colo. RPC 1.17(i). Sale of a Law Practice

(i) NOTWITHSTANDING RULE 1.5(d), THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE PRACTICE MAY BE BASED UPON A PORTION OF THE FEES COLLECTED FROM THE CLIENTS OF THE LAW PRACTICE, EVEN IF THE DIVISION OF SUCH FEES IS NOT IN PROPORTION TO THE SERVICES PERFORMED OR THE RESPONSIBILITIES ASSUMED BY THE SELLER AND PURCHASER.

New Language in Comment to RULE 1.17

PARAGRAPH (i) IS INTENDED TO CLARIFY THAT DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 1.5(d) OR 5.4 OF THE COLORADO RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, THE PURCHASE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF A PRIVATE LAW PRACTICE MAY BE BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OR SIMILAR DIVISION OF FEES RECEIVED IN THE FUTURE FROM CLIENTS OF THE LAW PRACTICE. THIS IS NOT, HOWEVER, THE ONLY METHOD THAT MAY BE USED TO VALUE THE LAW PRACTICE.

[No change to the remainder of the Comment.]

Proposed Amendment to Colo. RPC 1.5(d)

Insert the following as an introductory clause to paragraph (d) between "(d)" and "A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if . . .":

OTHER THAN IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A LAW PRACTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 1.17,

Reasons for Ethics Committee
Recommendation of Amendments:

The proposed amendments would permit a sole practitioner to base the price for sale of his or her practice upon a percentage of the fees generated by the practice. The amendments are intended to address restrictions in current Rules 1.5(d), 1.5(e) and 5.4, which provide, inter alia and respectively, that fees may be divided only between lawyers who are not in the same firm if proportional to the services rendered and responsibilities assumed, that referral fees may not be paid, and that a lawyer may not share fees with a non-lawyer.

The applicability of Rule 1.5(d) to the issue arises from the fact that, after completion of the sale, the selling lawyer will not be rendering any of the services or assuming any of the responsibilities for the client representation that generates the fee, a percentage of which is to be paid to seller.

While it may not fall within traditional notions of payment of a referral fee, certain members of the Ethics Committee feel that whether a fee is paid for referral of one case, or for the entire portfolio of a lawyer’ s cases (i.e., a sale of the entire practice), such a fee is a referral fee in violation of Rule 1.5(e). The methodology of payment for the law practice is irrelevant to this issue. If consideration paid for all cases to be transferred is a referral fee, it is inconsequential if it is a flat pre-determined sales price or one based on a percentage of fees generated by the client files transferred on sale.

Rule 5.4 would be applicable if the selling lawyer intended to retire from the practice of law as of the time of the sale. The percentage of fees thereafter paid to the retired, selling lawyer by the practicing buyer would be a sharing of fees with a non-lawyer in violation of Rule 5.4. The ABA Ethics 2000 Commission apparently has engaged in some discussion of this issue under the ABA version of Rule 1.17, which contains the condition (not included in the Colorado version of Rule 1.17) that the seller must cease to engage in the private practice of law in the geographic area/jurisdiction in which the practice was conducted.

The Ethics Committee subcommittee that drafted the proposed rules changes gave some thought to a broader exception to Rule 1.5(d), in order to make the exception applicable as well to a partner withdrawing from an ongoing practice. The ethical issues that arise when a sole practitioner’ s sale price is tied to fees generated after the sale also arise when a partner or shareholder of a firm retires or withdraws from a partnership or professional corporation, where severance/retirement consideration will be based upon fees generated after the retirement or withdrawal. There, too, it would be a division of fees with a lawyer no longer in the same firm not proportional to services rendered. However, because the Ethics Committee’ s mandate was limited to sale-of-a-practice issues under Rule 1.17, the subcommittee did not propose a broader exception to Rule 1.5(d), and the Ethics Committee did not consider such a broader exception.

Proposed Amendments Related to
An Attorney’s Trust Account

New Colo. RPC 1.15(f)(7)

(f)(7) A LAWYER MAY DEPOSIT FUNDS REASONABLY SUFFICIENT TO PAY ANTICIPATED SERVICE CHARGES OR OTHER FEES FOR MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF SUCH ACCOUNT INTO AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED UNDER PARAGRAPH (f)(1), (f)(3) OR (f)(4). SUCH FUNDS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTORNEY’S RECORDS OF THE ACCOUNT.

New Language in Comment to RULE 1.15

RULE 1.5(f)(7) ALLOWS THE LAWYER TO DEPOSIT A LAWYER’S FUNDS INTO A TRUST ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO PAY THE FEES THAT MANY BANKS CHARGE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS AND FOR WIRE TRANSFERS AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS. THIS PROVISION IS NOT INTENDED TO ADDRESS WHO IS ULTIMATELY OBLIGATED TO PAY SUCH FEES. RULE 1.15(f)(7) IS SIMILAR TO A PROVISION OF FORMER DR 9-102.

[No change to the remainder of the Comment.]

Reasons for Ethics Committee
Recommendation of Amendment:

The proposed amendments address practical problems that have been identified in the administration of trust accounts. The revisions are intended to allow a lawyer to keep funds in a trust account to cover routine bank charges. The proposed revision to Rule 1.15 is similar to a provision in DR 9-102.


Rule Change #2000(23)
Colorado Rules of Juvenile Procedure
Part Two. General Provisions
Part Three. Delinquency
Part Four. Dependency and Neglect
Part Six. Adoption and Relinquishment
Amended and Adopted

Rule 2.1. Attorney of Record

(a) [No Change]

(b) The clerk shall notify an attorney appointed by the court. An order of appointment shall appear in the file.


Rule 2.2. Summons—Service

(a) When the person to be served cannot be found after due diligence, service may be by a single publication pursuant to C.R.C.P. 4(g).

(b) [No Change]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

Under Rule 2.2, a single publication is sufficient. There is no need for four weeks of publication.


Rule 2.3. Emergency Orders

(a) [No Change]

(b) Where the need for emergency orders arises, and the court is not in regular session, the judge or magistrate may issue such orders orally, by facsimile, or by electronic filing. Such orders shall have the same force and effect. Oral orders shall be followed promptly by a written order entered on the first regular court day thereafter.

(c) [No Change]


Rule 3.5. Jury Trial

(a) In any action in delinquency in which a juvenile is alleged to be an aggravated juvenile offender, as described in section 19-2-516, C.R.S. or is alleged to have committed an act that would constitute a crime of violence, as defined in section 16-11-309, C.R.S., if committed by an adult, the juvenile or the district attorney may demand a trial by a jury of not more than six persons except as provided in section 19-2-601(3)(a), C.R.S., or the court, on its own motion, may order a jury trial, with the exception that a juvenile is not entitled to a trial by jury when the petition alleges a delinquent act which is a misdemeanor, a petty offense, a violation of a municipal or county ordinance, or a violation of a court order. When requesting a jury trial pursuant to this rule, a juvenile is deemed to have waived the right to have an adjudicatory trial within 60 days and is subject instead to an adjudicatory trial within 6 months. Unless a jury is demanded pursuant to subsection (1) of section 19-2-107, C.R.S., it shall be deemed waived.

(b) [No Change]


Rule 3.8. Status Offenders
Addition to Committee Comment

Runaways who are in violation of their probation do not fall under this rule.


Rule 4.5. Contempt in Dependency and Neglect Cases

The citation, copy of the motion, affidavit, and order in contempt proceedings pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107, shall be served personally upon any respondent or party to the dependency and neglect action, at least ten days before the time designated for the person to appear before the court. Proceedings in contempt shall be conducted pursuant to C.R.C.P. 107, except that the time for service under subsection (c) shall be not less than ten days before the time designated for the person to appear.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

The old rule read twenty days; however, given the new time constraints imposed by other statutes and policies in dependency and neglect cases, contempt proceedings should be dealt with accordingly. The committee believes that this will not infringe upon the respondents’ ability to respond. Respondents’ counsel can always request more time in exceptional cases.


Rule 6. Petition in Adoption

(a) (1)–(7) [No Change]

(b)(1)–(2) [No Change]

(b)(3) Where adoption of a foreign-born child is sought, the parties must present certified copies of the original documents with certified translations of the documents adjudicating the child as available for adoption;

(b)(4)–(5) [No Change]


Rule 6.2. Decree in Adoption

(a)(1)–(2) [No Change]

(a)(3) A finding that the child is available for adoption; that written consents of all persons, as provided by law, are on file with the court and are valid; that the rights of all parents, whether known or unknown, have been terminated or that such parents have been given notice of a right to a hearing on fitness, pursuant to Section 19-3-102, C.R.S.;

(a)(4)–(7) [No Change]

(b) The former name of the child shall not be stated in the final decree, pursuant to Section 19-5-210(3), C.R.S.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, December 14, 2000, effective January 1, 2001.

By the Court:

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
Justice, Colorado Supreme Court


Rule Change #2000(24)
Colorado Appellate Rules
C.A.R. 41. Issuance of Mandate
Amended and Adopted

C.A.R. 41. Issuance of Mandate

(a) [No Change]

(b) Time. Unless the court grants or removes a stay, or otherwise changes the time by order, the mandate shall issue as follows:

(1) The mandate of the court of appeals shall issue forty-six days after entry of the judgment. In workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance cases, the mandate of the court of appeals shall issue thirty-one days after entry of the judgment. The timely filing of a petition for rehearing will stay the mandate until the court has ruled on the petition. If a motion for enlargement of time to file a petition for rehearing is granted but no petition for rehearing is filed within the extended period, the mandate may issue following the last day of the extended period for filing the petition for rehearing or after the day specified by this rule, whichever occurs later.

(2)–(3)[No Change]

COMMITTEE COMMENT

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the Court of Appeals can extend the stay of the issuance of the mandate when an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing is timely filed. The rule change addresses the specific problem that arises when, after an extension has been granted, no petition for rehearing is filed. Practitioners had been concerned that, without having filed a petition for rehearing, any petition for certiorari filed beyond the time specified in the rule for stay of the issuance of the mandate would be untimely.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, December 14, 2000, effective January 1, 2001.

By the Court:

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
Justice, Colorado Supreme Court


Rule Change #2000(25)
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure
Chapter 20. Colorado Rules of Procedure Regarding
Attorney Discipline and Disability Proceedings,
Colorado Attorneys’ Fund for Client Protection, and
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and Judicial Education
Amended and Adopted

C.R.C.P. 260. Mandatory Continuing Legal and Judicial Education

PREAMBLE: Statement of Purpose

As society becomes more complex, the delivery of legal services likewise becomes more complex. The public rightly expects that practicing attorneys, in their practice of law, and judges, in the performance of their duties, will continue their legal and judicial education throughout the period of their service to society. It is the purpose of these rules to make mandatory a minimum amount of continuing legal education for practicing attorneys and judges in order to foster and promote competence and professionalism in the practice of law and the administration of justice.

C.R.C.P 260.4. Accreditation

(1)-(7) [No Change]

(8) In furtherance of the purposes and objectives of this Rule to promote competence and professionalism in the practice of law and the administration of justice, the Board shall consider, in accrediting programs and educational activities, the contribution the program will make to the competent and professional practice of law by lawyers in this state or to the competent and professional administration of justice. To this end, the Board may review course content, presentation, advertising, and promotion to ascertain that the highest standards of competence and professionalism are being promoted. The Board may withhold accreditation for any program that does not meet these standards, or the contents or promotion of which would be scandalous or unprofessional.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, December 14, 2000, effective January 1, 2001.

By the Court:

Nancy E. Rice,
Justice, Colorado Supreme Court


U. S. Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy Form 7. Statement of Financial Affairs
Notice of Amendment—Effective Immediately

Official Bankruptcy Form 7, Statement of Financial Affairs, has been amended and is effective immediately. The form must be completed by the debtor in every bankruptcy case. The form has been amended to provide additional information requested by taxing authorities, pension fund supervisors, and governmental units charged with environmental protection and regulation. Four new questions have been added to the form.

The new questions concern:

(1) community property owned by a debtor and the debtor’s non-filing spouse or former spouse (Question 16);

(2) environmental information (Question 17);

(3) any consolidated tax group of a corporate debtor (Question 24); and

(4) the debtor’s contributions to any employee pension fund (Question 25).

In addition, every corporate or partnership debtor and every individual or joint debtor who has been in business within six years before filing the petition must answer Questions 19 through 25. This is an enlargement of the two-year period previously specified. The instructions contained in the form also have been amended to make it clear that individual or joint debtors who have not been in business, as defined in the form, within the six years prior to filing should not answer Questions 19 through 25 but proceed directly to the signature page of the form.

The amended official Form 7 is available from the Internet at www.uscourts.gov/bankform and the local legal publisher. Contact Shannon S. Fuller, Assistant Chief Deputy Clerk, (303) 844-0005, with any questions.

© 2001 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/disclaimer.cfm?year=2001.


Back