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

TCL > December 2011 Issue > Court Business

December 2011       Vol. 40, No. 12       Page  101
From the Courts

Court Business

Visit the related court’s website for complete text of rule changes or proposed rule changes issued by the court. Each court’s website includes corresponding forms, which are not printed in Court Business, and versions with highlights of revisions (deletions and additions). Material printed in Court Business appears as submitted by the court and has not been edited by the staff of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee

Notice Requesting Written Comments re
Proposed Amendments to Crim.P. 17(h)
Deadline for Comments: Wednesday, December 30, 2011, 5:00 p.m.

The Colorado Supreme Court is proposing changes to Crim.P. 17(h). (Note: This is a correction to the proposed changes to Crim.P. 17(h) that were published in the November issue of The Colorado Lawyer on page 127.) An original plus eight copies of written comments concerning this rule change should be submitted to the Clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court, Christopher T. Ryan, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Ste., 800, Denver, CO 80202, no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, December 30, 2011. A summary of the revisions, as well as the proposed changes, can be found on the Court’s website at:


Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure
Proposed Rule 17(h)

(h) Failure to obey subpoena.

(1) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena served on him may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. Such contempt is indirect contempt within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 107. The trial court may issue a contempt citation under this subsection (1) whether or not it also issues a bench warrant under subsection (2) below.

(2) Trial witness—bench warrant.

(A) When it appears to the court that a person has failed without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena commanding appearance at a trial, the court, upon request of the subpoenaing party, shall issue a bench warrant directing that any peace officer apprehend the person and produce the person in court immediately upon apprehension or, if the court is not then in session, as soon as court reconvenes. Such bench warrant shall expire upon the earliest of:

(i) submission of the case to the jury; or

(ii) cancellation or termination of the trial.

(B) Upon the person’s production in court, the court shall set bond.


Rule Change 2011(13)
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 121. Local Rules—Statewide Practice Standards
Section 1-1. Entry of Appearance and Withdrawal


1. through 4. [No Change]

5. Notice of Limited Representation Entry of Appearance and Withdrawal.

In accordance with C.R.C.P. 11(b) and C.R.C.P. Rule 311(b), an attorney may undertake to provide limited representation to a pro se party involved in a court proceeding. Upon the request and with the consent of a pro se party, an attorney may make a limited appearance for the pro se party in one or more specified proceedings, if the attorney files and serves with the court and the other parties and attorneys (if any) a notice of the limited appearance prior to or simultaneous with the proceeding(s) for which the attorney appears. At the conclusion of such proceeding(s), the attorney’s appearance terminates without the necessity of leave of court, upon the attorney filing a notice of completion of limited appearance. Service on an attorney who makes a limited appearance for a party shall be valid only in connection with the specific proceeding(s) for which the attorney appears.


The purpose of section 1-1(5) is to implement Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) and 311(b), which authorize limited representation of a pro se party either on a pro bono or fee basis, in accordance with Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2. This provision provides assurance that an attorney who makes a limited appearance for a pro se party in a specified case proceeding(s), at the request of and with the consent of the pro se party, can withdraw from the case upon filing a notice of completion of the limited appearance, without leave of court.

Adopted by the Court en banc October 20, 2011, effective immediately.

By the Court:
Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
Justice, Colorado Supreme Court

Colorado Judicial Department
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Directives

Notice of Availability

Chief Justice Directives (CJDs) are available online at The website lists CJDs by date and allows users to search by topic. Hard copies of the CJDs are available for $.25 per page (approximately $125 for a full set) and may be obtained by contacting the Colorado Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., Ste. 300, Denver, CO 80203.

Publication in The Colorado Lawyer

CJDs will be published on a space-available basis in this "Court Business" section of The Colorado Lawyer. Attachments may be omitted for space reasons. To obtain a copy of attachments, contact: Court Services Division, Colorado Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., Ste. 300, Denver, CO 80203; or visit


CJD 11-02
Adopting Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases
Amended October 2011

Whereas, the Court desires to study whether adopting certain rules regarding the control of the discovery process reduces the expense of civil litigation in certain business actions, and

Whereas, the Court has determined that the pilot project requires the use of modified rules of Civil Procedure concerning the pleading, discovery and trial management of certain cases; and

Whereas, the Court carefully considered the adoption of the pilot rules by:

  • Publishing the proposal from the Colorado Pilot Project Committee (Committee);
  • Inviting public comment about the proposal from the Committee;
  • Holding a public hearing on January 19, 2011, concerning the Committee’s proposal;
  • Allowing and encouraging additional comment and suggestions to be made to the Court regarding the scope of the pilot project and the rules to be adopted;
  • Narrowing the scope of the pilot to include business cases; and
  • Redrafting rules to reflect the goals of the pilot to identify and narrow disputed issues at the earliest stage of litigation; require active ongoing case management by a single judge; and seek to keep litigation costs proportionate to the issues being litigated;

Now therefore, the Court orders the attached rules adopted for use in the designated cases in the First (Jefferson and Gilpin Counties), Second, Seventeenth (Adams County), and Eighteenth (Arapahoe County) Judicial Districts. The cases to which the rules apply are described in Amended Appendix A to the rules appended to this Directive.

These rules are effective January 1, 2012 and shall be applied to cases filed on or after that date. The pilot project is scheduled to be a two year pilot and shall apply to all applicable cases filed in the pilot district up to December 31, 2013 or until further order of the court.

The effect of the pilot will be studied by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) working at the request of the Court. IAALS will issue a report on the effect of the pilot project upon the conclusion of the two-year pilot.

CJD 11-02 was amended October 2011 to correct a reference and to replace Appendix A with Amended Appendix A. CJD 11-02, including Amended Appendix A and Appendices B and C, is available at

Done at Denver, Colorado, October 7, 2011.

By the Court:
Michael L. Bender, Chief Justice
Colorado Supreme Court

© 2011 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