Members of the Colorado Supreme Court heard from multiple commenters last week about the need to change the rules governing attorney regulation and discipline to allow for investigations of lawyers who committed unlawful sex acts at any point in their careers.

The justices scheduled a Nov. 19 hearing to address proposed amendments to the rules about attorney misconduct proceedings. The changes included a mix of procedural alterations and revisions to the timeline for opening an investigation against an attorney — the equivalent of a statute of limitations for legal claims.

However, those who weighed in at the hearing and in written comments were concerned about what was not in the proposal: A way to hold lawyers professionally responsible for unlawful sexual behavior that does not come to light until much later.

“For decades, Colorado has recognized the need for no statute of limitations when it comes to the reporting of child sexual abuse in criminal investigations and prosecutions,” said Jessica Dotter, speaking on behalf of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council. “In 2025, an individual can have their freedom and their liberties taken away, regardless of these delayed disclosures, but not their law license. It is incongruous with Colorado’s values to permit such a system in which you can practice as a sexual assault victim’s plaintiff’s attorney and sit on the sex offender registry.”

Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter cautioned that she is unsure if the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel can investigate sexual misconduct as a matter of professional discipline with the same aptitude as prosecutors’ offices.

“It seems to me the district attorney’s offices have law enforcement, their own in-house investigators, and I don’t think OARC has that,” she said. “Also, I think you have attorneys, quite frankly, who do this work who are often really, really dedicated to working with victims and skilled at working with victims. And that’s really important so that in the course of a prosecution, the victim has the kind of support that is really essential.”

The comments appear to have been prompted by the recent criminal prosecution of Daniel Quinn, a former prosecutor in Larimer County who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for his unlawful sexual contact with an intern in 1999.

Although a judge imposed sex offender registration upon Quinn last November and an attorney regulation case was separately opened, the professional discipline matter was ultimately dismissed because of the current five-year limitation on misconduct allegations. There is no limit for bringing attorney regulation cases that involve fraud or “conviction of a serious crime” — generally meaning a felony.

In response, commenters asked the Supreme Court to define “serious crime” to encompass unlawful sexual conduct and allow such claims to be investigated by attorney regulators at any time.

“If we cannot police our own, I do not know why a victim would trust us to handle their case properly,” said District Attorney Gordon McLaughlin, who now heads the office where Quinn worked. “I can tell you when I learned of this, that this was committed in my office by a person in a position of authority in my office … I was horrified. I was ashamed for my office, for my community and for my profession.”

Sara Stieben, who was Quinn’s victim, said she reported Quinn at the time of his misconduct, but he faced no consequences until she re-raised the issue years later. She told the Supreme Court an “arbitrary” deadline prevented Quinn from facing professional discipline, even as he faced criminal consequences.

“Victims will see their perpetrators unaffected, practicing law in a position of trust. Esteemed,” she said. “A sexual assault is a sexual assault no matter when it happened.”

In an unusual move, 42 Democratic state lawmakers also submitted a letter to the court, calling the lack of professional consequences for Quinn a “disturbing result” of the existing rules.

Justice Brian D. Boatright indicated that, in light of the difficulty of securing criminal convictions for sexual assaults, “I worry about the ability to have success” in an attorney regulation setting.

Jessica E. Yates, Colorado’s top attorney regulator, said she has no objection to removing the time bar on sexual misconduct allegations. She cautioned, however, that her office may still be unable to impose consequences for the same reasons prosecutors have difficulty pursuing years-old cases.

“Our burden is clear and convincing evidence,” she said. “Sometimes, we are unable to clear that burden even on things in which we have expertise.”

Justice Melissa Hart was not present for the hearing. She has been on a leave of absence since late October for “family and personal health reasons.“