Colo. R. Civ. P. 228
C.R.C.P. 228
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Proposed Amendments to C.R.C.P. 228 and the Cross-Border Practice of Law", see 31 Colo. 21 (January 2002). Granting person permission to practice law is sole prerogative of supreme court of Colorado. People v. Belfor, 200 Colo. 44, 611 P.2d 979 (1980). Purpose of the bar and the admission requirements is to protect the public from unqualified individuals who charge fees for providing incompetent legal advice. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1982); Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Prog, 761 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1988). The court cannot permit an unlicensed person to commit acts which it would condemn if done by a lawyer. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Grimes, 654 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1982). The counseling and sale of living trusts by nonlawyers constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. People v. Cassidy, 884 P.2d 309 (Colo. 1994). Assignee's action in filing adversary proceedings contesting discharge of debts assigned to him by various subcontractors constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. As long as the subcontractors are not selling their claims for present consideration but instead are retaining an interest in the proceeds of the claims, assignee is acting partially on their behalf in a representative capacity. By pursuing litigation to recover on the claims, assignee is arguably taking actions amounting to the practice of law. In re Thomas, 387 B.R. 808 (D. Colo. 2008). Suspended attorney must demonstrate rehabilitation for readmittance to bar. Actions of a suspended attorney who took part in a complex real estate transaction and engaged in the practice of law by representing, counseling, advising, and assisting a former client warranted suspension until he demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) He has been rehabilitated; (2) he has complied with and will continue to comply with all applicable disciplinary orders and rules; and (3) he is competent and fit to practice law. People v. Belfor, 200 Colo. 44, 611 P.2d 979 (1980).