Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: Scope, Client Duties, and Conflicts of Interest
Scope and core duties
Colorado's Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC) are promulgated by the Colorado Supreme Court and took effect January 1, 2008. They are modeled on the ABA Model Rules, but Colorado amendments control. The Preamble describes the lawyer as advisor, advocate, negotiator, intermediary, and public citizen. Rule 1.1 requires competent representation-legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary. Rule 1.2 allocates authority: the client decides objectives and whether to settle; the lawyer decides means and may limit scope with informed consent. Rule 1.3 requires diligence and promptness. Rule 1.4 requires reasonable communication, including keeping the client informed, responding to reasonable requests, and explaining matters enough for informed decisions.
Conflicts of interest
Rule 1.7 governs concurrent conflicts. A conflict exists if representation will be directly adverse to another client, or if there is a significant risk that representation of one client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests. Consent requires a reasonable belief that the lawyer can competently and diligently represent each client, consent not prohibited by law, no assertion of a claim by one client against another in the same litigation, and informed consent confirmed in writing. Rule 1.8 addresses specific transactions: business dealings with a client, use of client information, third-party payers, aggregate settlements, media rights, and sexual relations. Rule 1.9 protects former clients in substantially related matters; Rule 1.10 imputes conflicts to the firm, subject to screening where the rule allows; Rule 1.11 addresses government lawyers.
Worked example
A lawyer is asked to represent both the seller and buyer in a residential real-estate closing. Their financial interests are opposed: the seller wants the highest price and fewest repairs; the buyer wants the lowest price and most repairs. Under Rule 1.7, this is a concurrent conflict. The lawyer may proceed only if both clients give informed consent confirmed in writing and the lawyer reasonably believes the representation can be handled competently and diligently. If a dispute arises over repairs, the lawyer must withdraw from both sides and cannot use one client's information against the other.
Traps that cost marks
- Assuming a conflict disappears because the clients are friendly or the matter is 'just a transaction.'
- Relying on oral consent; Colorado requires informed consent confirmed in writing for most conflicts.
- Treating a former-client conflict as requiring only that the new matter be 'different'; the test is substantial relationship and material adversity.
- Missing personal-interest conflicts, such as a lawyer's financial stake or close relationship with opposing counsel.