Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Legal Directory

TCL > December 2000 Issue > Opinions

December 2000       Vol. 29, No. 12       Page  189
From the Courts
Colorado Disciplinary Cases


The Colorado Supreme Court has adopted a series of changes to the attorney regulation system, including the establishment of the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.16, and a new intermediate appellate entity known as the Appellate Discipline Commission, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.24. The Court also made extensive revisions to the rules governing the disciplinary process, repealing C.R.C.P. 241 et seq., and replacing those rules with C.R.C.P. 251 et seq. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge presides over attorney regulation proceedings and issues orders together with a two-member hearing board at trials and hearings. The Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence apply to all attorney regulation proceedings before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge. See C.R.C.P. 251.18(d).

Beginning with the September 1999 issue, The Colorado Lawyer will publish the summaries and full-text opinions of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Roger L. Keithley, and a two-member hearing board, whose members are drawn from a pool appointed by the Supreme Court, and the opinions of the Appellate Discipline Commission.

These Opinions may be appealed in accordance with C.R.C.P. 251.26 and C.R.C.P. 251.27.

The full-text opinions, along with their summaries, are available on the CBA homepage at See page 185 for details.

Case Nos. GC98B039, 99AD001, 98SA500 & 00SA188

The People of the State of Colorado,



Jeffrey Allan Parsley,


October 10, 2000

Original Proceeding in Discipline


On September 20, 2000, counsel for complainant filed a Notice of Compliance with the Presiding Disciplinary Judge ("PDJ") in the within matter. The PDJ, having reviewed the file and being fully apprised of the matter at bar, Finds and Rules as follows:

On December 18, 1998, the Hearing Board issued its Findings of Fact and Recommendation in People v. Parsley, GC98B039. On December 28, 1998, the Colorado Supreme Court issued an order pursuant to prior rule C.R.C.P. 241 in GC98B039 (designated by the Court as Case No. 98SA500) ordering Parsley to file exceptions to the findings of the Hearing Board. Shortly thereafter, on January 1, 1999, the Appellate Discipline Commission took effect. On January 5, 1999, Parsley filed a Motion for Remand to the Appellate Discipline Commission which was granted on February 1, 1999.

On April 26, 2000, the Appellate Discipline Commission ("ADC") issued the Order on appeal in GC98B039 (designated by the ADC as Case No. 99AD001) affirming the recommendation of the Grievance Committee. The ADC ordered that Jeffrey Allan Parsley ("Parsley") be suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, with sixty days stayed followed by twelve months of probation. The Order of Suspension set forth the following conditions: (1) Parsley was required to be in practice at least fifteen hours per week; (2) successfully complete ethics school within thirty days of completion of probation, or such additional time as is agreed to by Regulation Counsel; (3) that Parsley be monitored in the practice of law according to the terms set out in the hearing board’s recommendation; (4) Parsley must pay all costs of the monitoring; and (5) commit no ethical violations during the probation term. He was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding in the amount of $390.49 within thirty days after the date of the opinion.

On May 26, 2000, Parsley filed a Notice of Appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court of the ADC Order of Suspension (designated by the Court as Case No. 00SA188). On August 7, 2000, Parsley filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court, which the Court granted by Order dated August 9, 2000. The Court further Ordered that Parsley’s suspension should commence on September 8, 2000.

Parsley now seeks reinstatement pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.29(b) from Case No. GC98B39 (designated as Appellate Discipline Commission No. 99AD001 and Colorado Supreme Court No. 00SA188). A reinstatement from suspension for less than one year is governed by C.R.C.P. 251.29. C.R.C.P. 251.29(b) provides in relevant part:

[A]n attorney who has been suspended for a period of one year or less shall be reinstated by order of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, provided the attorney files an affidavit with the Regulation Counsel within 30 days prior to the expiration of the period of suspension, stating that the attorney has fully complied with the order of suspension and with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Upon receipt of the attorney’s affidavit that has been timely filed, the Regulation Counsel shall notify the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the attorney’s compliance with this rule. Upon receipt of the notice, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge shall issue an order reinstating the attorney. The order shall be come effective upon the expiration of the period of suspension.

Parsley filed his affidavit with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel in a timely manner on September 15, 2000, within thirty days prior to the expiration of the period of suspension, October 8, 2000. Parsley states in his affidavit that he has fully complied with the Order of Suspension and all applicable provisions of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and is thus eligible for reinstatement pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.29(b).

Regarding the requirement that he pay costs of the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Parsley paid $390.49 to the Attorney Regulation Committee on June 7, 2000. "Full compliance" with the order of suspension would have required Parsley to pay costs within thirty days of the April 26, 2000, Order of the ADC, which required him to do so. Parsley filed a Notice of Appeal on May 26, 2000, the date the costs were to be paid. He paid the costs on June 7, 2000, twelve days after he was required to do so under the Order of Suspension. He did, however, file a timely notice of appeal, and paid the costs shortly thereafter. He did, therefore, substantially comply with the Order of Suspension with regard to the payment of costs. See People v. McCaffrey, No. 99PDJ108, slip. op. at 5 (Colo. PDJ March 6, 2000), 29 Colo. Law 114, 115 (May 2000)(holding that the attorney’s substantial compliance with the requirements of prior rule C.R.C.P. 241.21(d) was sufficient for purposes of reinstatement). Parsley further complied with the requirements of C.R.C.P. 251.28(d) by filing an affidavit with the Colorado Supreme Court on September 14, 2000, within ten days after the effective date of the Order of Suspension. In the Certificate of Compliance, counsel for complainant states that Parsley is eligible for reinstatement. He has thus far complied with the Order of Suspension.

Accordingly, the PDJ herein ORDERS:


© 2000 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