COLORADO

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

COLORADO

Postby Summerz » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:15 am

When the New Year arrives there is one game changer I am curious about….how Colorado’s new law permitting the recreational use of marijuana (with no fear of an arrest record for possession) will impact law schools and students. I wonder how law schools and students will play it.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: COLORADO

Postby Borhas » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:36 am

Summerz wrote:When the New Year arrives there is one game changer I am curious about….how Colorado’s new law permitting the recreational use of marijuana (with no fear of an arrest record for possession) will impact law schools and students. I wonder how law schools and students will play it.


I went to a CLE on Legal Ethics or some shit like that (because it was required), and when the inevitable question about pot use came up, they recognized that it could be a thorny issue for practicing attorney since there are federal laws against it, but they said that the state wouldn't discipline attorney for recreational drug use by itself.

But still, in general it is always good to not advertise your questionable life choices in such a way that they are visible in your career sphere. A lot of time young folks grow up in bubbles (i.e. colleges) that make them think that drug use is completely acceptable to everyone, but it's not. Some people will judge you for it, or worse.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: COLORADO

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Borhas wrote:
Summerz wrote:When the New Year arrives there is one game changer I am curious about….how Colorado’s new law permitting the recreational use of marijuana (with no fear of an arrest record for possession) will impact law schools and students. I wonder how law schools and students will play it.


I went to a CLE on Legal Ethics or some shit like that (because it was required), and when the inevitable question about pot use came up, they recognized that it could be a thorny issue for practicing attorney since there are federal laws against it, but they said that the state wouldn't discipline attorney for recreational drug use by itself.

But still, in general it is always good to not advertise your questionable life choices in such a way that they are visible in your career sphere. A lot of time young folks grow up in bubbles (i.e. colleges) that make them think that drug use is completely acceptable to everyone, but it's not. Some people will judge you for it, or worse.


That opinion, for med pot, is here: http://www.cobar.org/repository/Ethics/ ... 4_2012.pdf

Colo. RPC 8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects[.]” Colo. RPC 8.4(b) sets out a two-part test. First, there must be evidence of a criminal act. Second, the evidence must establish that the criminal act reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. See, e.g., People v. Andersen, 58 P.3d 537, 541 (Colo. OPDJ 2000) (stating in dictum that not all convictions of the criminal laws necessarily justify the conclusion that Colo. RPC 8.4(b) has also been violated)

This opinion concludes that a lawyer’s medical use of marijuana in compliance with Colorado law does not, in and of itself, violate Colo. RPC 8.4(b).1 Rather, to violate Colo. RPC 8.4(b), there must be additional evidence that the lawyer’s conduct adversely implicates the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.



To add to it, I think the Ethics Commission released an opinion on pot store representation a few weeks back. Lemme try and find it.

ETA Found it: http://www.cobar.org/repository/Ethics/ ... 5_2013.pdf

Under Colo.RPC 1.2(d), "a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal. . . ." Federal law treats the cultivation, possession, sale, and use of marijuana for any purpose, even a medical one, as a crime. By contrast, Colorado law has decriminalized these activities [through Amendment 64] provided that they are conducted in compliance with Colorado’s laws and regulations.

The novelty and complexity of the conflict between Colorado and federal law prevent the Committee from devising a bright line distinction between lawyer conduct that complies with Colo.RPC 1.2(d) and lawyer conduct that violates it. Instead, the Committee has determined that there is a spectrum of conduct ranging from that which Colo.RPC 1.2(d) clearly permits to that which it clearly prohibits

The Committee concludes that a lawyer does not violate Colo.RPC 1.2(d) by representing a client in proceedings relating to the client’s past activities; by advising governmental clients regarding the creation of rules and regulations implementing Amendment 64 and the Medical Marijuana Code; by arguing or lobbying for certain regulations, rules, or standards; or by advising clients regarding the consequences of marijuana use or commerce under Colorado or federal law. The Committee further concludes that, for good or ill, under the plain language of Colo.RPC 1.2(d), it is unethical for a lawyer to counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that violates federal law. Between these two points lies a range of conduct in which the application of Colo.RPC 1.2(d) is unclear.



Keep in mind that Colorado is 1 state out of 50, and Colorado still has gray areas in its ethics opinions.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12711
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: COLORADO

Postby LeDique » Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:33 pm

^ the opinion they released a few weeks back (i'm assuming that's one you quoted) provided literally zero clarification.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: COLORADO

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:03 pm

LeDique wrote:^ the opinion they released a few weeks back (i'm assuming that's one you quoted) provided literally zero clarification.



The Oct 21 opinion, which I assume we're both talking about, really didn't. It was more a restatement of the known law and ethical considerations. From reading it, all I can assume is that Colorado doesn't allow attorneys to assist in establishing pot shops, because Fed Law. But lawyers can talk about tax some issues and pot, which was already allowed. Plus lawyers can smoke med pot, so screw fed law.

User avatar
Summerz
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:45 am

Re: COLORADO

Postby Summerz » Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:06 pm

I saw a story yesterday that the stores jacked up the prices to a sticker-shock level…my guess is boomers own the legit stores. So, what happens if your dealer gets wise and offers cut-rate prices? I suppose once you roll it up nobody can tell where you bought it.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests