Legal Opinion
In Re Attorney D.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided November 18, 2002No. 01SA361PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Coats
The Attorney Regulation Counsel petitioned for relief pursuant to C.A.R. 21 from an order of the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, authorizing discovery by the respondent in a disciplinary proceeding. The order of the PDJ came in response to a motion seeking protection from a subpoena duces tecum, commanding the attorney who reported the respondent’s conduct to appear for a deposition and produce a substantial number of documents. After hearing the objections of both the Attorney Regulation Counsel and the reporting attorney, the PDJ partially granted the Motion for Protective Orders,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Martinelli v. DIST. COURT IN & FOR CITY, ETC.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1980
- Leidholt v. District Court in and for City and County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1980
- Williams v. District Court, Second Judicial District, City & County of DenverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1993
- People v. District Court of El Paso CountySupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- In Re the Marriage of MannSupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re RooseSupreme Court of Colorado · 2003
- In Re FischerSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- In re Attorney F.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012
- In Re FisherSupreme Court of Colorado · 2009
- In Re PeasleyArizona Supreme Court · 2004
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.