Colorado Sanctions
From the web page of the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge
People v. Colin James Wilhelm. 25PDJ43. June 11, 2025.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Colin James Wilhelm (attorney registration number 48473) for six months, with two months to be served and four months to be stayed upon Wilhelm’s successful completion of a two-year period of probation, with conditions. Wilhelm’s suspension takes effect July 16, 2025.
In 2022, Wilhelm defended clients—a non-profit organization and its board of directors—in a lawsuit filed by the clients’ former employee. The opposing party prevailed at a trial held that December. After judgment entered in the case, the clients asked Wilhelm to file a notice of appeal. Wilhelm told his clients that he did not believe an appeal was viable; even so, he agreed to file a notice of appeal but told his clients that he would not continue to represent them in the appeal thereafter. Indeed, Wilhelm had informed his clients during the trial and afterwards that he would not be taking additional cases and closing his law practice to work as a lobbyist.
In January 2023, Wilhelm closed his law practice. That month, the opposing counsel in the clients’ matter moved for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $54,185.14 and served the pleadings on Wilhelm as counsel of record. Wilhelm did not confer with his clients about the filings, and he did not file a response. On February 15, 2023, the court granted those motions as well as a motion for entry of judgment, which the opposing party filed that day. Though Wilhelm received the orders through the electronic filing system, he did not review the orders or inform his clients about them. Nor did he review with his clients the writ of garnishment and writ of execution that the opposing party later filed in the case, even though he received both filings.
In addition, Wilhelm did not file a notice of appeal in the case by the deadline of February 17, 2023, nor did he alert his clients that he would not be filing one. Rather, on the day the notice was due, a member of the board of directors spoke with Wilhelm and understood that Wilhelm would be filing the notice of appeal. In July 2023, a board member discovered the writ of execution when checking to see if the notice of appeal had been filed. Wilhelm did not respond to his clients’ attempts to communicate with him, nor did he respond to the opposing counsel’s communication alerting Wilhelm that his clients were trying to speak to the opposing counsel, and requesting permission to speak with them about the judgment.
Through this misconduct, Wilhelm violated Colo. RPC 1.2(a) (a lawyer must abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of a case and consult with the client regarding the means to achieve the objectives); Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3)-(4) (a lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and must promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Colo. RPC 1.16(d) (a lawyer must protect a client’s interests upon termination of the representation).
People v. Jarod Conner Harsha. 25PDJ33. June 11, 2025.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ stipulation to discipline and suspended Jarod Conner Harsha (attorney registration number 55360) for three years, all to be stayed upon Harsha’s successful completion of a three-year period of probation, with conditions.
Harsha engaged in three episodes of misconduct while working at a law firm. In 2022, a client hired the firm to represent the client in a dissolution of marriage case. Harsha entered his appearance in the case that May. Harsha initially neglected to file the client’s sworn financial statement and direct the client to take a mandated parenting class. Harsha filed a memorandum of understanding in the case, which the court adopted as an order on September 1, 2023. In that order, the court ordered the parties to file the required documents to complete a dissolution decree or other status report within fourteen days. Harsha did not file a status report until October 23, 2023, stating that he would file a separation agreement and parenting plan forthwith. He did not do so, however. Nor did he respond to the court’s order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, even though he reviewed that order. In January 2024, the court dismissed the case. Harsha did not notify the client that the case had been dismissed and did not return the client’s subsequent communications. In May 2024, the client contacted the law firm, and a partner at the firm successfully moved to reopen the case. Harsha separated from the law firm that month.
In May 2023, while Harsha was with the law firm, a law student interning with the firm drafted a notice of temporary orders for a client, which Harsha then filed in the client’s case. But Harsha billed the client 0.2 hour for drafting the notice and 0.1 hour for sending the notice to the intern for filing, and the intern billed the client 0.2 hour for filing the notice. Harsha’s and the intern’s billable hourly rates were $340.00 and $225.00, respectively. They swapped their billing entries to meet what they understood were daily billing expectations.
In early 2024, Harsha contracted, on the law firm’s behalf, with a company to provide legal services for clients via the company’s online platform, for which the company would pay a fee to the firm. Initially, the law firm used its financial management software to process the fees. After the company began to use a different payment service, Harsha—whose personal checking account was linked with the law firm’s business account—negligently selected his personal account rather than the firm’s business account to receive the company’s payments. From February to May 2024, the company made five payments totaling $1,642.34 to Harsha’s account. In May 2024, Harsha repaid the law firm the full amount, though he was likely entitled to a portion of the fees.
Through this misconduct, Harsha violated Colo. RPC 1.3 (a lawyer must act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); Colo. RPC 1.4(a)(3)-(4) (a lawyer must keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and must promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); Colo. RPC 1.15A(a) (a lawyer must hold client property separate from the lawyer’s own property); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer must not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 242.41(a).
(Mike Frisch)