Legal Opinion

In Re the Requests for Investigation of Attorney E.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 14, 2003No. 01SA404PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kourlis

I. Introduction

In this original proceeding 1 we construe our rules governing the investigative phase of our attorney regulation system. We hold that the attorney, who is the target of the investigation, is a "party" to the investigative proceedings. Because our rules governing discovery by the Attorney Regulation Counsel incorporate certain provisions of the rules of civil procedure, Attorney Regulation Counsel must provide the target attorney with notice of the subpoenas and copies of the subpoenaed documents. In addition, we affirm the Presiding Disciplinary Judge's protective order…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Nebraska Press Assn. v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. OlsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  4. New York Times Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. The Procter & Gamble Company v. Bankers Trust Company, Bt Securities Corporation, the McGraw Companies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re Attorney F.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  2. In re the Marriage of WigginsSupreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  3. Colorado Mills, LLC v. Sunopta Grains & Foods Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  4. State ex rel. Suthers v. Tulips Investments, LLCColorado Court of Appeals · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API