The Colorado Supreme Court agreed on Monday that a public censure with a medical evaluation was an appropriate sanction for an attorney who, in his own words, acted like a bully toward school employees in the presence of his teenage client.

Igor Raykin had appealed the punishment imposed by Colorado’s presiding disciplinary judge, arguing in part for a private censure as he and attorney regulators had agreed to. But the Supreme Court upheld the sanction and rejected Raykin’s argument that his conduct was not even covered by the professional standard at issue.

“In this case, the PDJ correctly determined that Raykin’s conduct violated his duties as a professional. The sanctions imposed are appropriate,” wrote Justice Melissa Hart in the March 24 opinion.

Raykin told Colorado Politics he would continue to be an assertive and even an aggressive attorney on behalf of special-needs students. But his abusive conduct toward Mesa County schools employees was “not one of my better moments as a lawyer or as a human being.”

“The folks who were there did not really deserve to be the recipients of my conduct that day. And I understand why they were bothered by it. Hell, I’m bothered by it,” Raykin said.

In March 2024, Raykin and the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel agreed about the events that transpired on May 18, 2022, during a meeting in which Raykin was representing a special-needs student in Mesa County Valley School District 51. The meeting was hybrid, with Raykin, his client and the teenager’s parents appearing virtually.

During the meeting, held to discuss the student’s individualized education plan, Raykin:

• Repeatedly told a female employee to “shut up”

• Told that employee he felt “so bad for your ex-husbands”

• Told that same employee he wished she “would actually stop working here and go work where you really belong, which is in the gutter”

• Called that employee “a miserable person”

• Complained that “you people can’t send the right f–king document”

• Said that “every time I unmute myself, I’m going to say ‘f–k'”

The day after the meeting, he sent an email to the school district’s attorney calling the female employee a “despicable creature and a cancer to kids.”

Soon, attorney regulators opened an investigation. Originally, Raykin stood defiant, characterizing the inquiry as an “obvious abuse of process.” He insisted he would not be apologizing and called the female employee “a despicable person who is toxic to special needs kids.”

However, Raykin — a former educator himself — eventually sent attorney regulators another letter admitting his actions to date were “selfish” and “hurtful.”

In February 2024, he wrote to the school employees who attended the meeting. Raykin admitted he “didn’t appreciate any of you as educators that day, or as people” and that he was “a bully, an immature person who couldn’t control himself.” He also acknowledged setting a “terrible example” for his teenage client.

Raykin further apologized individually to each participant. Upon learning that one person quit special education after the meeting, Raykin said his conduct “has resulted in imperiling the education of the kids I purport to fight for.”

He and the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel agreed they supported a punishment of a private censure with medical and ethical requirements. Presiding Disciplinary Judge Bryon M. Large and two other attorneys, following a hearing, decided a public censure was appropriate, with an order for Raykin to undergo a medical examination at his expense. They noted he had taken ownership of his misconduct, and his mental health issues and family history were a relevant consideration.

“His lack of civility and respect for others’ rights victimized school district staff, damaged the legal profession, significantly degraded his own efficacy as his client’s advocate, and set a terrible example for his minor client,” the disciplinary panel wrote. However, when Raykin’s conduct “is measured against his sincere expressions of remorse, his efforts to address the conditions that contributed to his misconduct, and his excellent reputation, public censure with conditions emerges as the most just and reasonable disposition in this matter.”

Raykin, representing himself, appealed several issues to the Supreme Court. Among other things, he now challenged whether he even broke the rule requiring a lawyer to “not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.” He also argued the disciplinary panel should have accepted the original agreement for a private censure.

The Supreme Court brushed aside the second argument, noting the disciplinary judge was within his authority to reject a proposed punishment. The court also agreed the rule covered Raykin’s conduct and, moreover, the disciplinary panel appropriately looked to the American Bar Association’s sanctions guidance as “a starting point.”

“No one — not even Raykin himself — would argue that his behavior met professional standards. He has admitted as much,” wrote Hart.

The case is In the Matter of Raykin.