SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MINUTES OF MEETING October 28, 2011

The Colorado Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee was called to order by Richard W. Laugesen at 1:43 p.m. in the Columbine Conference Room, 5th Floor, Denver News Agency Building, 101 West Colfax Avenue, Denver, Colorado. The following members were present: David R. DeMuro Ann Frick Peter A. Goldstein Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman Thomas K. Kane David C. Little Richard W. Laugesen

`

Christopher B. Mueller Justice Nancy Rice Howard I. Rosenberg Ann Rotolo Frederick B. Skillern John R. Webb Jose Vasquez-visitor

The following members were excused: James Abrams Michael H. Berger Janice B. Davidson John A. DeVita, II Carol Haller Richard P. Holme Charles Kall

Cheryl Layne David L. Michael Lee N. Sternal Jane A. Tidball Robert V. Trout Ben Vinci

Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the August 26, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. Information Items:

• 2012 Civil Rules Committee Meeting Schedule • Supreme Court’s Order Adopting New and Amended Provisions of Rules 201.3(3) Classification of Applicants (Amended); Rule 224 Provision of Legal Services Following Determination of a Major Disaster (New); Rule 226.5 Legal Aid Dispensaries and Law Student Externs (New); Rule 251.5 Grounds for Discipline (Amended); and Rule 254 Colorado Lawyer Assistance Program

• Supreme Court’s Order Amending Chief Justice Directive 06-03 Pertaining to Language Interpreters

• Supreme Court’s Order Adopting Pilot Rules for Certain District Court Civil Cases

• Supreme Court’s Notice of Amendment of the Attachment to Chief Justice Directive 05-01 Concerning Access to Court Records

• Supreme Court’s Notice of Amendment of Chief Justice Directive 85-31 Pertaining to Assessment and Collection of Statutory Fines, Fees, Surcharges and Costs

• Supreme Court’s Published Order Amending Chief Justice Directive 11-01 Pertaining to Electronic Filing Standards

• Supreme Court’s Order Amending Chief Justice Directive 08-02 Pertaining to Assessment of Cost Recovery Fees For Maintaining Technical Infrastructure Necessary to Support Electronic Acts as to Court Records

• Denver Docket Article on the Recent Change to Colorado’s Student Practice Act

• Colorado Lawyer Article by Richard Holme on Proposed New Rules For Calculating Trial and Appellate Deadlines With Request For Public Comment

• Comments Received on Proposed New Rules For Calculating Trial and Appellate Deadlines

• Dick Holme’s and Judge Janice Davidson’s Comments on the Comments and Recommendations A brief update discussion was held on the Civil Pilot Project. Mr. Laugesen noted that he provided a handout [on the table] from a Denver attorney regarding the inclusion of eminent domain cases in the Project. The attorney’s letter proposed amendment to the Pilot rules. Chairman Laugesen asked Justice Rice if she wished to comment on the project and the attorney’s request for amendment. Justice Rice stated that the Chief Justice Directive for the Pilot Project was recently amended and provided to Mr. Laugesen. It is a handout at today’s meeting. The Directive specifically addresses the types of cases that will be part of the Pilot. Justice Rice stated that she would have a copy of the current Pilot rules e-mailed to each of the Committee members.

2

Justice Rice recognized and thanked the Pilot Project Rules Subcommittee [Hon. Janice Davidson, Hon. Ann Frick, Carol Haller, and Magistrate Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman. Questions should be addressed to Carol Haller. Judge Frick is training judges. One training session has already been held and another was scheduled for November 5. Justice Rice further reported that several of the forms are different, i.e., the Delay Reduction Order and Civil Case Cover Sheet. The timing of the Initial Case Conference is also different. Eminent domain cases are not part of the Pilot. Judge Frick asked that attorneys use discretion and properly categorize their cases by using the most predominant of their claims. A member inquired whether the Court would be sorting cases for applicability of the Pilot. Judge Frick responded that applicable cases will have a special Civil Pilot Project Cover Sheet. A judge will confirm the inclusion of a case in the Pilot Project. Attorneys disagreeing with inclusion or exclusion of the case in the project will receive a final determination from the judge. If the case is appropriately designated, the Notice to set Case Management Meeting will be filed within 49 days of the filing of the last answer. David Little expressed concern with the filing date and possible statute of limitations implication on misdesignating of a case, especially with regard to pleadings not complying with all of the factual elements and Pilot rules leading to a rejection by the court. Judge Frick responded that the rules are not meant to impose a Twombly rejection or to modify pleading requirements. During the case management conference, discovery may be requested. However, if discovery is not framed within the issues raised by the party’s pleading, it may be denied. An amended complaint may need to be filed to properly frame discovery. Mr. Little observed that responsive pleadings may be filed after the status conference, and asked how that would fit into the program. Judge Frick responded that the status conference is held 49 days after the last answer is filed, which could be as late as 4 months due to other filings. By that time, all initial disclosures from both sides should have been filed. If issues are clearly identified, it is easier to work out a proportional discovery order. Judge Frick went on to note that medical malpractice is excluded from the pilot, but all other professional malpractice cases are included in the pilot. David DeMuro provided clarification about dockets. He observed that judges in Denver have a full civil docket, not just civil Pilot cases. Similarly, Adams and Jefferson County judges have mixed dockets. Boulder is not participating in the Pilot. Judge Frick further reported concerning disclosure of expert reports. She reported that the Subcommittee was aware of the Federal rule change regarding no exchange of draft expert reports. The Pilot rules provide that draft expert reports are not discoverable.

3

Appendix C includes a section on certification of the expert’s file. If there are changes to C.R.C.P. 26(b)(5) regarding expert reports, those changes should be a part of the appendix in the Civil Pilot Rules. In addition, changes should include the same organization in terms of numbering.

C.R.C.P. 122--Proposal to Correctively Amend C.R.C.P. 122(c)(3). Chairman Laugesen directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 4 [pp 36-39 of the Agenda Packet] concerning a corrective amendment to C.R.C.P. 122(c)(3). A motion was made and seconded to amend the rule as requested. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman inquired about the difference between the versions in the Agenda Packet. She noted that senior and retired judges may act as appointed judges. Another member asked if senior judges work under different rules--are senior or retired judges bound by Section IV? Another member responded stating that a judge cannot be appointed unless he/she was formerly on the bench. Judge Webb advised that C.R.C.P. 122 deals with appointed judges and clarifies rules pertaining to appointed judges. Appointment is made on request of the parties to the case. Senior judges, on the other hand, are appointed randomly by the Supreme Court. The origin of service is different. There were questions about language of the rule, including missing clauses and the use of an older version of the rules rather than the 2011 version. Several members asked that the issue be delayed until Mr. Holme [who raised the issue] is present. Chairman Laugesen stated that the questions would be sent to Mr. Holme and that the matter would be tabled for inclusion at the January meeting.

C.R.C.P. 53 Pertaining to Masters--Proposal to Amend Rule 53 to Conform to the 2003 Amendments to F.R.C.P. 53. Chairman Laugesen directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 5 [pp 40-44 of the Agenda Packet] concerning C.R.C.P. 53. Mr. DeMuro stated that the Federal Rules Subcommittee looked at revising C.R.C.P. 53 to follow F.R.C.P. 53. Mr. DeMuro reported that there was some support among Subcommittee members [consisting of David DeMuro, Judge Davidson, Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman, Richard Holme, and Professor Mueller] for the proposed amendment. Mr. DeMuro observed that in some district court cases, a master is appointed for discovery purposes [in situations where the discovery is difficult or complex]. He noted that the Colorado rule is different from the Federal rule. He reported that in the Subcommittee, there was concern that it may be inappropriate to take this option from judges. Some felt district court judges should make such rulings and the rule should be 4

narrow. However, some problems can be difficult to handle in a court proceeding, hence, the immediate availability of a master was felt more workable. When an attorney serves as discovery master, each side pays a proportionate share of the costs. Many parties cannot pay a proportionate share; therefore, cases may be receiving different treatment based on the financial capability of the parties. He observed that on the other hand, some district court judges may be so overburdened that detriment occurs because of inability to obtain timely rulings. Professor Mueller noted his feeling that special circumstances should be removed from the rule. Mr. DeMuro further noted that timing of such a change may not be good in view of the Civil Pilot beginning in only some of the districts on January 1, and the desirability of not undermining the ability to comparatively assess that program by injecting changes to non-project rules. With that concern in mind, Mr. DeMuro moved that consideration of amendment of C.R.C.P. 53 be postponed until after the Civil Pilot Project is concluded. The motion was seconded, and carried 11:0.

C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-14--Proposal to Require Only Proof of Service Rather Than the Original Summons As Documentation Necessary For a Default Judgment. Chairman Laugesen next directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 6 [pp 4547 of the Agenda Packet] concerning a change to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-14 [documents used in obtaining a default judgment]. Mr. Laugesen noted that the inquiry comes from Hon. David Bottger (21st Judicial District) on why the rule requires the original summons--wouldn’t just proof of service be sufficient? Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman was first to comment on the issue. She observed that the need arises when there is a challenge to the service after a default judgment. In a motion to set aside a default judgment, there may be a question of who was served, how the person was served and by whom. It is a question of validity, including whether the signature on the original is valid. Another member observed that a number of default judgments are based on faulty service--that the person against whom the default was entered is not always aware of the judgment. Another member inquired about the difficulty in filing an original in the setting of almost universal mandatory electronic filing. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman responded that an original document is not necessary, as long as the document from the process server is legible--i.e., in the case of a challenge, the process server should have identified the person served. Another member stated that he would support an amendment outlining what is needed on a served document sufficient to allow a challenge--that a scanned document should be of sufficient quality. 5

Another member observed that it is the creditor who suffers, not the debtor. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman responded that debtors could also be harmed. She observed that this whole difficulty could be avoided by process server registration--these individuals would then be easier to regulate and contact when needed. Another member joined in providing examples of situations where a default judgment is challenged--e.g., a family states that no one there was served and the server cannot be located, as distinguished from an instance where a server is used on a regular basis. A member inquired as to the reason for the proposed amendment. Another member responded that the courts have no room to store paper filings. Another member noted that discussions during development of the e-filing rules focused on dealing with documents having notarized signatures--that this seems to be the same problem and should be addressed holistically--that signatures on legal documents have a different verification or a different approach. Peter Goldstein agreed, but asked that the rule not require a paper-filed original, at least in district court. He noted there is not as much collection activity in district court so that the need for the original document is not as great. He stated that he agreed with the Electronic Filing Committee, that there needs to be a good reason to require a paper filing. Mr. Goldstein moved (and another member seconded) for creation of a rule to be drafted by him concerning paper filings. The motion carried 7:3. Chairman Laugesen asked Mr. Goldstein to draft such a rule, including language on legibility, and submit it for the next meeting.

C.R.C.P. 345--Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum Reform for County Court-Further Discussion on Proposed New C.R.C.P. 345, Notice to Subpoena Recipients and the Subpoena Form Chairman Laugesen next directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 7 [pp 4855 of the Agenda Packet] concerning amendment of C.R.C.P. 345. Mr. Laugesen asked Subcommittee Chair Hamilton-Fieldman to provide a brief overview of the matter and the Subcommittee recommendations. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman provided a brief background of the matter, reminding the Committee that language of the rule was previously approved, and that it is now the subpoena form and notice to subpoena to produce recipients that remain in issue. The question is whether the Committee can use the existing subpoena form [JDF 80 at page 55 of the Packet] for county court. She reminded the Committee that it had decided to use a different subpoena form from that developed for district court with present JDF 80 to be looked at as the possible format. Mr. Laugesen joined, adding that the Committee had also not agreed on the notice that goes with a subpoena to produce. 6

Justice Rice advised that the court is withholding C.R.C.P. 45 until it receives the Committee’s recommendations on 345. She voiced a preference for having both the district and county court rules being considered by the court and published and described in a Colorado Lawyer article at the same time. She stated she hoped that the remaining considerations on C.R.C.P. 345 could be concluded in January. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman stated that it may be best to shorten or not include the notice. She stated that the large amount of information in the district court notice might overwhelm a pro se party. Mr. Laugesen responded that the notice is needed only for a subpoena to produce and is required by (a)(I)(A)(vii) of proposed 345. Further, some of the same subpoena to produce problems solved by proposed by C.R.C.P. 45 and 345 need to be communicated to subpoena to produce recipients. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman responded that, in view of the discussion, further work on the subpoena form and notice were needed, and moved to table the matter for further consideration. Justice Rice stated that the court wants review of the entire package of proposed changes in January, including proposed changes to C.R.C.P. 45, 80, 69, 345, and 369(1)(b). Ms. Hamilton-Fieldman stated she would have her subcommittee finish the forms and take another look at C.R.C.P 369.

Proposed New C.R.C.P. 327--Whether There Should Be a Rule Allowing a Limited Form of Deposition to Obtain Defendant Locating Information. Chairman Laugesen directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 8 [pp 56-67 of the Agenda Packet] concerning a proposed new rule (C.R.C.P. 327). Mr. Laugesen stated that because Mr. Vinci was unable to be present, the Committee would not take action on the proposal at this meeting, but would allow Jose Vasquez of Colorado Legal Services to comment on the proposal. Mr. Vasquez was introduced and invited to share his comments and concerns on the matter. Mr. Vasquez stated that he is the supervising attorney for consumer law at Colorado Legal Services. Colorado Legal Services is a statewide, non-profit representing low income individuals who meet Federal poverty guidelines and those 60-years-of-age and older. Mr. Vasquez stated his comments were being made on behalf of Colorado Legal Services and clients, especially those involved in debt collection. Mr. Vasquez stated that the largest area of concern is the potential for abusive debt collection practices. The proposed rule would give significant power to debt collection agencies. Experienced collection agencies represent a high volume of collection

7

clients. The process is usually an assembly-line approach with limited oversight. He noted that attorneys representing creditors are often hard to reach. Mr. Vasquez stated that he feared the proposed rule would give power to persons who are not attorneys. The nature of collection is often aggressive. The rule would open the door to further possible intimidation and abusive conduct. Mr. Vasquez observed that the proposed rule would allow pre-suit deposition of a defendant and/or a defendant’s family members. He voiced concern over debt collectors harassing friends and family by deposing them to find the debtor. Parents, children, guardians, neighbors, or friends may turn on friends or family members. In addition, it would be more likely that debt collectors would use this method because it would be less expensive to depose elderly parents rather than paying for usual skip tracing. Mr. Vasquez stated that the rule would also add another judge-involved procedure in the county court where courts are already overburdened. Deposition power would be added for friends or family who do not appear, leading to contempt citations or bench warrants. This would not be economically sound. Further, there may be challenges from parties with similar names creating confusion and/or unnecessary depositions, which would add to existing burdens on the system. Mr. Vasquez stated that the court’s role should not be as debt collector or providing a locator service. Collection agencies have a vast amount of resources and should be able to locate a defendant through usual means. Mr. Vasquez cited the case of Rozick v. Kristin. He noted that the court’s reasoning for permitting pre-complaint depositions was to preserve testimony that would otherwise be lost. He feels that the current analogy with C.R.C.P. 27 is misplaced. Mr. Vasquez stated that the proposed rule may also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act--both federal and state. There are limited parameters as to how debt collectors may communicate with third parties. The collectors must identify themselves and state that they are trying to confirm or correct location information. Collectors may not ask where the debtor is located. The law applies to collectors and collection attorneys. Mr. Vasquez also questioned the location of depositions, as there would probably be no oversight of the deposition as it is being taken. Mr. Vasquez questioned the accuracy of the perception that people are trying to hide. He stated that he felt that rather than trying to hide, people are instead frightened and unsure about the identity of callers. Mr. Vasquez concluded by stating that Colorado Legal Services is opposed to the proposed rule; does not feel that it is necessary; and that the proposed rule may harm clients, principally the elderly and the poor.

8

Chairman Laugesen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Vasquez. Professor Mueller asked about the collection agency providing or not providing specifics of the debt. Mr. Vasquez responded that could cause needless embarrassment for the debtor. A member responded that a debt may have been unpaid for many years, or the defendant may not have received communications. Another member noted that a defendant may have received communication from a number of collection agencies employed by the creditor or agencies that purchased the debt. The collection agencies may not reference the original debt or account number; thus, the debtor may be unsure as to what the debt is and who is owed. Another member responded that the debtor is not powerless, and may request verification of the debt. Judge Kane noted that he has seen an identifying deposition under C.R.C.P. 27 [the district court rule] only once. He stated that in his experience, that rule is not used to identify the defendant’s location. Mr. Laugesen asked the Committee if they were still interested in having such a rule. Justice Rice noted that even if recommended, such a rule would have to be posted for comment. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman shared a concern about the proposed rule’s language being mandatory rather than merely discretionary. There being no further discussion, Chairman Laugesen thanked Mr. Vasquez and declared the matter tabled to a future date when Mr. Vinci could be present for the discussion.

C.R.C.P. 4--Changes Proposed by Stephen Glenn, President of Process Servers Association of Colorado. Chairman Laugesen next directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 9 [pp 6066 of the Agenda Packet] concerning proposals by the Process Servers Association. Several members expressed interest in having Mr. Glenn attend a meeting to present the Association’s proposals. Mr. Laugesen stated that he would contact Mr. Glenn and invite him to a meeting. Mr. Laugesen noted that multiple changes were suggested. One proposed change includes controlling by certification those who are permitted to serve process. A member observed that the proposal suggests that by making process servers a profession may enhance the quality of the service. Other members disagreed and felt that it would drive up costs. Justice Rice stated that the Court would not be interested in a certification arrangement. Judge Frick observed that it is difficult for people of limited means to serve documents, and no understanding by pro se parties or those being served as to the process. 9

Judge Rotolo suggested that there should be uniformity in the information contained in the return of service--there is so much variety which sometimes leads to insufficiency problems. A member pointed out that there was a major overhaul of the rule in March of 2006--that many changes were made at that time at the instance of the Process Servers Association--that several of the suggestions now being made appear worthy of consideration. Mr. Goldstein shared a concern that some registered agents are not accepting documents that should be accepted. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman suggested that the Committee hear from the Secretary of State regarding registered agents. A member suggested a comprehensive and long term look at signatures and service. Another member joined stating that some process servers require signature on an IPAD to acknowledge service. Judge Kane stated that it would be a good idea for the Committee to look at service issues other than the proposal to register and certify process servers--that certification would need to be done by the legislature. Mr. DeMuro agreed with Judge Kane and inquired about a subcommittee to review Mr. Glenn’s proposals, as well as C.R.C.P. 4 and 304. Several members again stated that it would be good to hear from Mr. Glenn on these matters. Chairman Laugesen stated that he would invite Mr. Glenn to the January meeting and tabled the matter to that time.

C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-26--Proposed Amendment to Add Language: “If a party’s attorney is not registered with E-Service, they may be served under C.R.C.P. 5.” Chairman Laugesen directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 10 [pp 67-70 of the Agenda Packet] concerning service of parties not registered with “LexisNexis,” noting that the suggestion came from Aurora attorney George Meziere. His concern was that it cost $13.00 to have LexisNexis mail the document versus $.44 when he has his staff mail it. A member stated he disagreed with the suggestion, noting that there are many reasons to serve individuals via LexisNexis, including the electronically maintained record it creates. Mr. DeMuro stated that he liked the idea of the proposed change; however, he was not sure that the change would be appropriate at this time in that the state court e-filing provider will be changing soon. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman added that the E-Filing Committee will most likely approach this Committee in January about rules for the new e-filing system--the new system should be ready by January 1, 2013. 10

Members then discussed new attorney access to LexisNexis. An attorney may use the service once they receive their bar number, register themselves, and pay the required registration fee. Those working at a firm are added to the service by the firm. Pro hac vice individuals receive a temporary bar number. The Committee, by consensus, decided to table the issue and wait for the new e-filing system. Chairman Laugesen stated that he would notify the requestor of the Committee’s decision.

C.R.C.P. 26(b)(4)--Whether State Court Rules Should Follow Last Year’s F.R.C.P. Amendment Concerning Limitations on Discovery From Experts. Chairman Laugesen next directed the Committee’s attention to Agenda Item 11 [pp 7175 of the Agenda Packet] concerning Federal amendments on experts and whether Colorado rules should follow those amendments. Mr. Laugesen asked the Federal Rule Subcommittee Chair David DeMuro to comment. Mr. DeMuro stated that the Federal Rules Subcommittee had considered the issue and was able to report on the Subcommittee’s thoughts concerning them. He reported that the federal rule change provides that drafts of expert reports not be required to be produced. Production of experts’ reports now involves game-playing, where information is held back until the final is produced. He reported that the Subcommittee liked the substance of the federal rule; however, Judge Davidson felt that the change may be inconsistent with the Pilot Project. The consensus of the Subcommittee was to wait on a rule change until the Civil Pilot Project is completed. Justice Rice voiced concern that the Pilot not hold up progress in general--that it does not make sense to stop all rule change activity. Judge Webb pointed out the disparity between the state and federal rule. The federal rule removes discovery communication with the expert. The certificate of disclosure in the Pilot rules provide that communication with the expert be produced. Drafts and communication are protected. Judge Frick pointed out the Pilot rules require that all be disclosed except drafts of the expert’s report--that changes should not be made to the rules if a conflict will be created. Mr. Goldstein identified another inconsistency between the several rules. The federal rules require a signed expert report. Non-Pilot rules allow a written summary. The Pilot rules require a signed report. Mr. DeMuro stated there are five counties participating in the Pilot and 60 other counties that will be dealing with civil actions under other-than-pilot-rules. Professor Mueller pointed out that a detailed comparison study of the effectiveness of the Pilot will take a great deal of time and expense. If the rules are changed, the basis for comparison will 11

be altered. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman agreed. Professor Mueller also indicated that it would be challenging to attempt to determine how much the particular change altered the comparison. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman suggested removing the second part of the federal proposal; however, the revision may still not prevent the game-playing. Several members requested that the Committee table the issue until the January meeting. Mr. Laugesen agreed that the matter does not appear to be urgent and that Colorado does not need to follow what the feds have done. Mr. Goldstein pointed out that there are no depositions in the Pilot project. The rules do not allow opposing counsel to meet the expert. A deposition with a key expert is often important--hence his concern about that part of the Pilot Project rules. Judge Frick responded that the exclusion of depositions originated with the medical malpractice bar--that experts create enormous costs and delays. Mr. Goldstein stated that he likes to see draft reports and is against protecting them. Mr. DeMuro stated that there is some pressure to adopt a state rule on experts comparable to the federal rule; however, the issue is not simple and the Pilot is just beginning. Professor Mueller inquired as to whether this should be a question that the Supreme Court decides--there will be other changes over the next few years that the Committee will be asked to consider. Judge Frick responded that if there is a conflict between a regular rule and a Pilot rule, the Pilot controls. Justice Rice suggested that Mr. DeMuro write a letter to the Supreme Court with Judge Davidson’s input, concerning the possible detrimental effect on evaluation of the Pilot Project if a rule such as the federal rule on experts is adopted. Professor Mueller raised another issue involved in the Pilot project, i.e., the Twombly rule. He stated that it appeared that that approach is included in the explanation of the Pilot rules. Judge Frick responded that it is expected that pleadings will frame the issues so that discovery will be focused. She felt that was different from Twombly and the current system. David Little noted that in professional liability cases there may be two cases in one filing--the Pilot does not appear designed to accommodate that. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman observed that Appendix B does not contain an addition for claims for punitive damages. Judge Frick responded that the rules speak to amending a complaint, and that claims for punitive damages can now only be made by amendment [see C.R.S. § 13-21-102(1.5)].

Non-Agenda Matters 12

Chairman Laugesen asked if there were any matters the Committee wished to discuss that were not on this meeting’s agenda. Magistrate Hamilton-Fieldman raised a concern with the recent change to C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-1 pertaining to entry of appearance and withdrawal for unbundled litigation cases. She stated that she recently presided over two cases that dealt with this issue. Without limitation on this type of activity, lawyers will be in and out of cases quickly, and their opponents may not be aware of who they should contact. A member responded, stating that the notice of withdrawal form, if properly worded, advises that it is the client who is now the contact person until further notice. Justice Rice advised Committee members that if they have questions concerning that proposed change, they should contact Justice Hobbs--that that change occurred via another committee.

Adjournment With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:26 p.m. in the State Judicial Fifth Floor Conference Room, 101 W. Colfax Avenue, Denver, Colorado. Respectfully,

April Bernard

13