Legal Services [Oct 12, 2026]

Mr. Narodink, please call the roll.

Representative Camacho, we didn't hear you. If you tried to unmute.

He's here.

Present.

Senator Gonzalez?

Representative Luck?

Senator Roberts?

Representative Soper.

Senator Wiseman.

Madam Vice Chair.

Mr. Chair.

And Rep. Carter has also joined us. And with that, we have a quorum. Members, we have three items on today's agenda. Retention of counsel in the matter of Buttery v. Leader. and then we're going to have a general discussion on the retention of counsel process. Then we're going to get an update on pending litigation before we go into any other business. Before we begin, a note on the scope. So a complaint was filed on October 6th in the Denver District Court naming representative leader individually in the state of Colorado acting by and through the House of Representatives. Our task today is deciding on retention of counsel. I want to remind folks we're not here to evaluate any allegations in the litigation, and I ask members to refrain from commenting on the merits if we're in open session. If there's any reason for us to go into executive section to discuss any particulars in the context of retention of counsel, I would entertain that motion. But again, our business here regarding that case is narrow. It is about retention of counsel, and so discussion of the merits would need to relate to that. And with that, I'll kick it to Director

Okay. Thank you, Director DiCecco. Members, any questions at this point?

Okay. Thank you, Director DiCecco. Any questions or comments at this point?

Director to check out. Maybe we'll do our litigation status update now. I'm happy to do that if you would like. We currently have seven matters that are active. and the first would be gays against groomers at all the garcia at all we have two attorneys who have been retained on that martha tierney who all who originally was appointed along were retained along with ed ramey and blaine myrie and who was appointed by this committee this summer that case was dismissed on legislative immunity at the district court and the legislative defendants prevailed at 10th circuit plaintiffs filed a petition for serp to the u.s supreme court As I mentioned, the committee has retained Mr. Myrie as counsel in that case to assist Ms. Tierney, and they filed a motion in opposition to that petition. On Friday of last week, the petitioners filed their reply. The court will now put the case on its calendar and consider the petition in conference. So the scope of that case really depends on whether three judges agree to grant cert, three justices, I should say. And if they do, then that case will become very active and will require us to retain. We would have to review whether or not current counsel or whether we need to retain counsel with experience in litigating before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could become very expensive. That case currently has $66.50 of attorney's fees thus far this fiscal year. but um i expect we'll be receiving additional bills some of which just even to print sure the the motion and um the response or motion in opposition i should say just even printing that to follow the peculiar rules or archaic rules of the supreme court was a couple thousand dollars just even print our response which is unusual the second case is the united states versus Colorado et al. This was the case that related to the state and the city and county of Denver's laws that limited state or city cooperation in immigration enforcement. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case, and it was currently on appeal in the 10th circuit. Appellants filed their appell brief in August, and the clerk granted the appellee's motion for extension of time, and the General Assembly's deadline for an answer brief is now due on October 21st. That granting of the motion occurred in the last fiscal year, and we have not yet received any bills related to our motion in opposition. Again, ultimately, the cost of that case will depend on do we prevail at the Tenth Circuit. The third case would be Blanton v. Daugherty et al. Oh, And that case I should mention, that was originally Ed Ramey, and now Martha Tierney is representing the General Assembly in that case. The third is Blanton v. Dougherty, and that's Jerome de Herrera was counsel on that case. The court granted a motion to dismiss against the co-defendant cholera opportunity caucus on July 17th. On September 15th, the legislative defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. And last week, the plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment and motion in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The reply is due on October 27th. Fees have obviously been incurred on that based on the motion for summary judgment being filed, but we have not received a bill for them. Everything else that occurred on that case occurred in the last fiscal year. We also currently have independent ethics committee complaints that were filed earlier, I believe at the end of last year. But in that instance, we retained Mark Gruskin, and on behalf of the legislative parties named, the legislators filed their answer to the complaint, and the IEC has taken no other action. So there's been a limited activity on that. I believe we had $875 of fees for that action this year. I mentioned the prior lawsuit against Representative Leader. That's Jennifer Chick versus Leader et al. In that one, we retain Mr. Melts and as well as Mr. Gruskin, who in that instance is representing the Speaker and the Majority Leader. Speaker and Majority Leader Duran filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Friday. As of now, I have not heard, but I assume the response is due for Representative Leader around the same timeline. but to my knowledge has not filed her response to that complaint yet. Thus far, we have spent $16,677.22 this fiscal year. Ultimately, the scope and cost of that case will depend if those motions are successful or how it proceeds in the course of trial. Last, we had to also have a case of Representative Bradley versus the House Workplace Harassment Committee. This committee retained Mark Gruskin once again and his firm to represent the House Workplace Harassment Committee. The committee has been served, but its answer is not yet due, and it has not filed a response. We have not received a bill for any services rendered in that case yet. Finally, we have a case of Surface v. Greenwood Village Police Officer Gordon et al., which includes the Colorado General Assembly. In this instance, the committee voted to retain the Office of Legislative Legal Services to represent the General Assembly. We filed for a motion to dismiss as well as a reply brief, and we filed a response to a motion for default in that instance. And Michael Doerr, Jennifer Berman, and I are the ones who have worked and done those pleadings. Thus far, and as they always will be, so long as we're your council, your fees are separately zero on that. So that's our current matters that we have, although we had one other that was completed this fiscal year as well. Thank you.

For now, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Checo, for that rundown. I have not been shy on this issue. I feel like this was a moment that was coming at some point or another. I think if you look at our roster of attorneys, we have benefited as a state from outstanding Coloradans who've been willing and been at a point in their career where they could do this type of work for $250 an hour, and that is simply coming to an end. And I just like to point out, I think when we talk about $250 an hour for an attorney, that is not money that is going directly to that attorney, only for that attorney. I mean you including database costs You including staff costs You including benefits for your staff you including paper you including printing everything else And I am not surprised that many practitioners in the local market cannot make this pencil out Which leads me to my next question. If we are authorizing a higher rate on this matter, what would prevent all of our current engagements for asking or renegotiating their rates? Because what we are effectively doing is asking these attorneys to pay and subsidize the state's attorney's fees at $250 an hour. And you can only do that for so long before you get out of business, evidenced by the fact that the council identified for representative leader has essentially made a similar representation. can we expect to have to raise the rates for all of the other engagements as a matter of fairness, as a matter of equity, as a matter of simple business principle, that these folks cannot continue to do this at those rates, knowing that we've approved one higher rate for one engagement. Thank you, Rob Camacho.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my first question would be do we want to address this in the next agenda item or do you want to – or I can –

No and I would just say my answer ultimately would have been what you had described that we do have retention agreements and they are currently counsel of record although I don know if in the last case if a motion has been filed if Mr Gruskin has officially been named as counsel of record with the court But we do have retentions After this committee votes on this we retain those members or retain council

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also had a similar thought process to Representative Camacho in that I understand that our rate has been low for far too long and I've served on this committee for eight years and this has been a topic of conversation we've had that entire time. I've been kind of batting this around in my head in terms of going forward. I'd rather not just parse this out on a case-by-case basis. I think if we're going to raise the cap, we should raise the cap for all the cases moving forward rather than just saying, well, for this one case of, I can't pronounce this individual's last name, but the current leader case.

Butchery, yeah. Yeah, in the Butchery against leader case. That if we have a one-off waiver here, I'm afraid we create the precedent of having every attorney that chooses to represent the General Assembly to then attempting to negotiate a higher rate. And eventually, you know, the market will settle out, but it just means that it becomes a two-step dance. You first look to the attorney, and then you're negotiating the rate on a case-by-case basis, depending on which law firm that is. And so I guess I would rather us, instead of a one-off waiver, lift the rate up and then going forward, that's the new established rate, and then revisit the topic if we're just not getting attorneys, say, at a 425, 450 rate.

I think that's for the committee's discussion.

Rob Camacho. And I don't want to be – thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to be scolded for jumping ahead of our agenda item, but I have very strong feelings on that as well, Rep. So we're happy to engage in that discussion when we talk next because I don't think a standard rate is the way to go, and happy to explain why when we hit our next agenda item.

Yeah, that's right, Rep Carter. This is the rate on the new case. The rate on the old case stands as is And with one of the points that Director DiCecco made in his presentation that I want to underscore here because I agree with it and it is how I am considering retention of mounts for the buttery case is mounts is not going to need to get up to speed on you know the process of what it means to be a legislative aide or You know, digging into getting to know what Sheila Leader's office runs like. There's like a lot of potential billable hours that would go into getting to know the case that I think mounts has already checked. That I think even though we're increasing the rate here, there's probably sufficient long term savings in this context, in this case, to offset that.

Director DeCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Weissman. And I also want to just add that to the extent that we were discussing the rates and the caps or whatnot that Representative Sovereux mentioned, we will have an opportunity to hear about the other three attorneys and their rates that are different from his, which includes sort of multiple rates within a firm, which is a little bit different than how we've always done it. because I do think, again, the complaint is related to an employment situation. And this committee we've had discussions related to earlier this year about the fact we don't have a lot of attorneys with employment law experience. And so the other attorney or other firm that mentions that was unavailable for this case or is just generally has been unavailable. And so I do want to identify them as potential counsel to represent the House, both because the current complaint sounds and relates under Title VIII and what is an employer, and also because there's other complaints that may come, the discrimination that also, again, could be related to employment, as well as just to add counsel to our roster or to people that this committee approves who have employment law experience.

Okay. Reploc, did you have your hand up? No longer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'm hearing a lot of desire to jump into the second item on our agenda. At this point, I do sort of want to parse out that under the first item of our agenda, retention of counsel, we sort of have two – we do. We have two things that we need to do. We need to determine retention of counsel for rep leader, and we need to determine retention of counsel for the House of Representatives. And right now we're on the first part of that business, which is retention of counsel for rep leader. I personally, not acknowledging that we're going to have a longer conversation on the retention of counsel process, I personally am ready to entertain a motion about retention of mounts and a waiver of the hourly limit in order to retain him in the leader matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, that's a proper motion. Mr. Naranek, please call the roll.

We don't need a second. Okay, but Rev Sober seconds.

Yes

Yes

Aye

Aye

Yes

Aye

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just before I get to that, for the committee's benefit, I just wanted to mention you heard included in that motion was end in any administrative.

Rob Sober. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. DiCecco. I know you and I spoke, and I referred another employment lawyer over your way as well. I don't know if you had a chance to speak with that person. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Soper, I did not at this time.

Director, did you check on your sponsor?

Rep Camacho. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have not been sitting on this committee for eight years, but I don't think I've ever actually asked. In the billable hours that we pay, our costs are separate. So, for example, Rep Soper had mentioned a litigant on the Western Slope. When that litigant has to travel to Denver for a hearing or if a virtual hearing is not allowed, Do they bill costs separately or separately from the bill of hours? Is it all one package?

Okay, further discussion. Okay. I will note my reaction to the presentation of potential options. I appreciate the disclosure that Director DiCecco knew Brian Moore 10 years ago. Thank you for recognizing that on the record. I personally believe that of the presented options, Brian Moore has nine attorneys. They focus on this. The other law firms, there were five and four. And if you do the math on the blended rate, the Brian Moore firm, not only do they seem to have the most attorneys that work in this area, but the blended rate would be the cheapest of any of the options. reasons I'm inclined to go with Brian Moore. Further discussion on that? Okay. Seeing none, at this point I would like to entertain a motion that the committee retain Brian Moore and his firm Plaskoff, Prescott, and Moore for the defense of the Colorado House of Representatives.

Second.

Representative Camacho?

Senator Carson?

Representative Carter?

Senator Gonzalez?

Representative Luck?

Senator Roberts?

Representative Soper?

Senator Wiseman?

Madam Vice Chair?

Mr. Chair?

Director DiCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to just start by adding a couple things to this conversation. One is the part of the reason to consider this is fairness or what does it make sense to keep charging or keep willing to pay that rate or will people be even willing to accept it? The other, again, is part of the reason we have this meeting today is that it's a departure from the normal practice. So in many cases I able or the chair the director or deputies are able to pull the committee to retain counsel without having a meeting But because it's a departure from our practice and because we are either going in the one instance, we're increasing the rate and the other picking a new attorney and going off and having a higher rate. That's part of the reason to consider what do you want to do going forward? because in the absence, if we have sort of our custom and practice, which is included in the handbook, I think that we would need to have a meeting to do anything different than one of our pre-approved attorneys and at the current rate. So I think that's part of the reason that this discussion is important is just to the extent any before the next meeting, if there is any more lawsuits filed, that this committee can react to it and quickly retain counsel on behalf of any defendant. Then I just if I could just want to add back to Representative Camacho's questions and points. I think part of the explanation is we always you either make a vote by email or through a conversation and do it by poll. Or like today, you have a meeting and vote on in the public on and decide how what counsel you want to retain. I should mention on those polls, those are all made public, and it's a statutory exception to the open meetings law, and that those get posted within 72 hours of the vote. So they're still public, but kind of given the administrative nature of it, it's not something that you always have to do in an open meeting. But I do want to go back to Representative Camacho's points, and I do want to say that the General Assembly has been very fortunate to have an amazing group of attorneys who are dedicated and who have done incredible work representing the General Assembly and any of its parties in litigation. And I'm very grateful for what they have done. And I'm as a director, when I pick up the phone and call one of those attorneys, I feel very confident when they say yes, that you will that this body or this any part of it that's being sued will have excellent representation. So I, you know, in changing this to the extent it impacts them or if there's new cases that they're retained, then I would still make those recommendations. and then obviously it's just how it fits within whatever policy or process you adopt, I'm hopeful that we will continue to have those attorneys represent it just perhaps under new terms. When we leave these meetings, my office, this goes back and we retain counsel on behalf of a specific party for whom you voted to retain counsel. So we do execute an agreement where the hourly rate is included as one of the terms. So for now, all of those cases, some of which are just at the beginning and others are potentially winding down or not, those attorneys agree to the rate of $250 per hour. Whether or not this changes there and want to come back and renegotiate, I don't know. that would ultimately, whether I could renegotiate will depend if the committee gives me that authorization in the first place. If not, then we would have an agreement. And if they're unable to continue representation under that agreement and, um, you know, asked to be removed as representation by the court, then I would have to come back and retain new counsel. I appreciate that last point Um and it goes to um one of the points rep Camacho made withdrawing representation in a case when you have a signed contract is actually something that not exactly easy to do Rep Camacho.

I'll just note in response and I have thoughts I want to share but I'll let others in the committee including yourself share but I completely agree with the point that you just made that us making this decision in reaction to what has happened in the leader case probably is not the best way for us to set policy because then inevitably our conversation will hover around amounts that we've discussed in the context of these cases which might not be more broadly applicable. I mean, Director DiCecco has noted we might potentially have a case that goes to the United States Supreme Court if cert is granted. And, um, you know, we've talked about how a paralegal billing rate, um, at, uh, a firm that engages at the Supreme Court might be higher than anything that we've talked about, uh, today. Um, and so, um, just allowing the conversation we're having today, that risk alone, um, color, um, a long-term policy without foresight makes me want to get some options, have this conversation color on what we're going to do and move forward from there. All right. I see a bunch of hands. I'll start with Senator Gonzalez.

Rep Camacho. Can I proceed with my-

So my comments are caged on not only personal experience, but service on this committee. And I think what we have seen over the last few years is we are getting sued a lot. And the state and each one of our members in the General Assembly deserves best representation because a lot of these cases tend to have lasting precedent. But we also have seen over the last few years that some cases aren't as serious or not necessarily serious. Some cases aren't as complex. I think we've seen everything from nuisance lawsuits to cases that can go before the U.S. Supreme Court. And having one unified rate for each one of those cases is probably unfair, not only to the state, but to the public visc. Because you are asking someone who may not be equipped but was just available at a certain rate at a certain time to do something that might be above their skill or expertise. So I would love to see maybe a rubric or some kind of decision matrix where it says, okay, this is a case of this complexity, involves these many plaintiffs, involves this many whatever. we anticipate it would cost or take so many billable hours and so much expertise or resources of a larger firm or smaller firm and have a matrix of some sort in which we can have a range of hourly rates that would be approved based off of a matrix So for example if we get a nuisance lawsuit that wouldn survive a motion to dismiss that might be appropriate for a younger attorney to take Not only do we open up the attorney ranks to folks with different experience and allow them to participate in this process, but we also reserve our right to find more qualified counsel at higher rates for more complex matters. So one that would go before the US Supreme Court one that is destined for his appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court or the 10th Circuit, that inherently should require a higher billable rate. And having the flexibility and the ability to right-size who we're picking based off the complexity of the case and other factors according to a matrix we can all agree on or propose, I think is not only benefits the public fisc, It right sizes the legal needs that each case deserves and gives us options to go beyond the roster of attorneys we currently have. And I want to go back to that. We have been so incredibly fortunate to have some of the most experienced litigators in the state be at a point in their career where they could take $250 an hour. That's essentially a pro bono rate or a low bono rate for many of these attorneys to bill at much higher hours. And they're at a point in their career where they can do it, and we can no longer count on that. We keep talking about building the bench of attorneys that can do this work. Having a blended rate and right-sizing the matter for the person's experience is a great way to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Camacho. I want to begin this by just appreciating Director DiCecco's walking us through the types of cases and litigations that we have seen come before this committee over the past year. Of the seven, it appears to me that three of those seven came from, in regards to the policies that, or actions related to the policies that we pass here at 200 East Colfax, right? Gays Against Groomers, USV Colorado, the Greenwood Village case, right? Two of those cases relate to campaign finance, Blanton v. Doherty et al., and then the IEC complaints, and then the two workplace employment law matters, right? Chick v. Leader, Bradley v. Houseworth's workplace committee, and now this eighth matter, right? And so I would just, in reference to Rep. Camacho's comments around creating a matrix, around what types of case and what types of law and what types of expertise, I would appreciate that. Now, here's where I feel like I just need to put something on the record because of the past eight years of my service that have involved three different Senate Ethics Committee hearings. and also the fact that there was a case, a matter that then at the time we didn't understand whom or for what there was counsel sought, that this committee did decline to extend representation to. And, And that was as it related to a workplace harassment issue. Right. And the last point I think I want to raise on this is that a few years ago. because this general assembly, the Internet was a wild place, and this committee had to grapple with a number of cases involving blocking of social media, of people's comments or people on their social media accounts. And at a certain point, we adopted a policy and then said, you know what? If you break this policy, that's on you. you might not get legal counsel. Full stop. At a certain point, we have to, as a body, decide, are we going to continue to extend legal representation after we have set up policies and processes and procedures in order to ensure safe and welcoming workplaces. To that end, I want to name that this question around what the hourly rate we ought to pay to all attorneys, but also particularly the types of attorneys who specialize in employment law, is in my mind the last step in the process of new member orientation, workplace harassment trainings, trainings of legislative aides, and at the back end representation if and when those matters arise. Right. We've had a broader conversation in this building since I was running for office. We are not we. The House of Representatives in 2018 expelled a member. it then becomes to me important to have a broader discussion about our ethics rules ensuring that they are aligned in both the senate and house it means both ensuring that our workplace harassment and workplace policies and also our hr policies are aligned in both the House and Senate, because I don't believe that they are right now. And then on the back end, to ensure that there is clarity that if and when we have done everything as a body that we need to do, that there is clarity in terms of when you will, or when you, I'm sorry, when you may, or when you might not be able to access legal counsel. So to me, this is an important aspect of a much broader conversation that is informed by the eight years that I have had in this building, the eight years that I have had in the Senate, the chairing of three different ethics committees, and then recognizing that the House does things differently. I want to just close by saying that as we think about these broader dynamics within this building I also do want to appreciate Representative Soper's comments around part of why we have had such a challenge in seeking counsel is not because there's not incredible attorneys across this state, is because we don't pay. But then when you put that against also the really complicated needs of, well, look, last time I read in the papers, we're looking at a $1.6 billion budget shortfall. Maybe it'll be $2 billion by the time we get to January. When you also look at those challenges of what the hourly rate for legal counsel be when compared against the other incredibly compelling policy issues like, I don't know, feeding babies and making sure elders are taken care of, right? Like those are all also important and worthy things. Where I want to close is by submitting this and putting this on the record, I want it to be so, so costly that there is a political solution, not a litigation solution. I want House and Senate leadership to take these issues seriously before they ever get to the point where a worker in this building feels like they got to go sue in order to have a fair process. And so from that mind, I would just want to put the employment law aspects at a jaw-droppingly high rate. Because if we're not doing right by the workers who work inside this building, what are we doing? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. A few things. I think there's a great deal to what Senator Gonzalez just said, but I won't go too deeply into that for now anyway. Just to say I agree that there's plenty that happens before and after this committee meets. A few things. Director, please refresh my memory on this. In all the years I've been around, I think we've only voted to increase the rate once. I think previously we were at 225 or even 200 an hour, and we voted to increase to the present level some number of years ago, and it's been frozen since at least 21. Director DeTrigger.

Senator Weissman. Thank you. I pressed you at the exact date. I ran 250 through the official government Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator a little while ago. That 250 would be 320 right now. If we did nothing else, we've lost that much to inflation. Some numbers in policy we have an inflator on them This one we never have so the committee retains a little bit of discretion Twice in the last two years in my recollection maybe more recently than that this committee as the senator noted has discussed not really the contention but the reality that that is less and less in sync with the legal market We heard the director share from a sort of survey of some potential firms that we might retain. Even a lot of associates are billing above the inflation-corrected 320. So I think, like Rep. Camacho, I have a little bit of hesitation to purport to make a long-term binding decision today. But I think more and more evidence has piled up insurmountably that 250 is just done. Which brings me to sort of an idea that I want to posit as a framing notion for us. We, through the legislative institution, through this committee, can try to act as a market maker, or rather, it can't. It essentially has to be a market taker. By just announcing a rate, and I agree with some things others have said, getting lucky by having a lot of very senior attorneys. do good work for this institution at that rate. We have been acting as a market maker, and I don't think that we can continue to do that, particularly as the types of cases for which we need to engage in representation seem to both be more various and more numerous. What we are doing today, I think, is an example of us acting more as a market taker or a market participant where our staff for the office have done some work about who are firms with evidently the right experience and what would their rates be, which as we've seen varied depending on the size of the firm and practice structure. Is it a solo outfit? Is it a bigger firm? Are we looking at a blended rate, et cetera? Going forward, I think what we've engaged in today is going to be a lot closer to the reality that this committee engages in. We'll see what complaint comes before us. Is it a civil matter? Is it administrative? Is it one of these mystery things where we don't know, a complaint and respondent or fact pattern that we grappled with previously? What kind of representation is needed? Is it something that can obviously be met with a 12B? Is it, in fact, very complex, maybe novel? Who's available? And then what might those folks charge? And then, frankly, we'll see what we're dealing with at that point almost certainly it's going to be well above $250 in any case. We all bear in mind the responsibility we have to the public fisc. I don't see this committee approving anything at $1,000 an hour ever. It's interesting. Some colleagues sitting next to me are suggesting maybe we need to leave open that possibility. I mean I hope not but I hesitate you know vis something Rep Soper said a while ago now I hesitate to see us now or even you know say January at our organizational meeting pin into our sort of rules you know some other number 475 I sorry 375 400 450 whatever because as today discussion and facts have evidenced we don really know until it starting to happen I think that we have to continue to retain the discretion to see what the director and other staff are bringing to us. And maybe we'll have a close call where somebody who appears to be a little bit less experienced is able to come in at a lower rate. another firm maybe has more experience, higher rate, we have to grapple with that. We're all going to have our different senses of the outside bound. What hourly is sort of just too much for the facts in front of us. The other problem with setting a firm number say we go all the way to the high side. Imagine a counterfactual where money is less of an object than it obviously is. You know, now we're possibly not doing right by the public fisc. If we go on the high side, both of the – I'm imagining 500, you know, which is not crazy for senior attorneys in this town, maybe the West Slope either. We've had two examples below that. Now you're sort of setting a marker, and there's going to be some quantum of inframarginal rent that will be captured differentially by different attorneys. And that's overcorrecting and us continuing to not be a market participant. I think we have to achieve the lowest rate that we can for what we need when we need it. We're grappling with the problem of underpaying. I don't think we should overpay either. So those are my thoughts for now. We'll continue to be into future discussion. I am interested in what other members are thinking about this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have several thoughts while my colleagues have spoken here. Overall, I do agree with you, Representative Camacho, that we really do need to develop some sort of a matrix and range of rates. There needs to be something that almost is a known number so that we could still quickly pull the committee and be able to get legal counsel quickly, especially in matters that are time sensitive. But if it's going to be more complex, I mean, obviously bring the committee back together, have that ability to do what we just did, which is waive the current hourly rate. To Senator Gonzalez, you hit the nail on the head when you said that there's some failure of leadership for why we have a couple of these lawsuits and that when legislative leaders aren't paying attention to what's going on and the only recourse is for individuals who work at the Capitol to have to sue, that's something that we should probably analyze. Is there some way to be able to stop these lawsuits before they get to this point? because the fact that we have seven lawsuits, I mean, some of these are completely out of the General Assembly's control, but there's about half of them that are within our control that we certainly, by different decisions that could have been made, would not have resulted in the only dispute resolution forum being the courts. The Aspen Daily Press, has a quote on the side of their building in downtown Aspen that says, if you don't want it printed, don't let it happen. And I do think that's something that members should be reminded of, perhaps at new legislator orientation, that there's a lot of public scrutiny, and certainly if you don't want to be sued, don't do something stupid, to paraphrase, I guess. I do have a recommendation that I'd like to ask of OLS. I would like to know what other legislatures and governments do in this regards. I would be curious what kind of other market rates might be for the government rate around the United States. I mean obviously that could be hard to factor in because Colorado is a more expensive state than other states, but we probably have some sense of an idea of how other legislatures do hire outside counsel. Do they have a range of matrix? I mean, it could just be that we can do a little bit of copying and pasting, which is the tried and true way of doing things in the practice of law. But I would like to ask your office if you wouldn't mind exploring what other states and other government bodies do in this space, because I do think that would be helpful for us coming up with a longer-term policy for how we're going to pay for outside counsel. And it's important for us to have kind of all those facts on the table before we make that decision going forward. Yeah, really that would be my thought, that we just get more information and kick it to another meeting.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Director DeCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Soper, happy to look into that. I know Representative Camacho made a similar request, and we provided a little bit of information. It was sort of like, and which states are similar to us as well, and I think that context, and I believe Mr. Berry had provided some information, but we will try to – we'll look into that for you and try to find it. I know from just looking at my own files at old kind of questions or research we had compiled, a number of states have their attorney generals represent the legislative parties. So there's many states that don't follow our model at all. So I'll just mention that. And then if I could just – since this is a public meeting, I do want to put one thing on the record. And that is, at this point, we have complaints that have been filed by two individuals. We have not had the opportunity to see an answer which may deny all the allegations or a motion to dismiss to suggest they have not occurred. So I just want to remind the committee that the fact that there has been a complaint filed does not necessarily mean that any of those allegations will be proven to be true. At this point, we have a complaint, but we don't have a response from Representative Leader in either of the two cases, too. So I just want to, for the record, mention that.

Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. DeShako.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to comment because I will not probably be in attendance when you guys actually you probably will not be in attendance when you actually make this vote. But for the group, and if you don't know, I am a criminal defense attorney who has taken government contracts, who has done hourly work for going on that government basis. I would love to flesh out what the matrix looks like from and I hope you guys will flesh out what that metric looks like from Representative Camacho. Because I just don't I don't know how comfortable I'm going to be when we start tearing things out. But I'm sure you'll give them enough information for that. But it just my criminal defense attorney brain starts getting weird when you start classifying and rating. And, OK, well, this is worth this. This is worth this. This is worth that. I would love to see what it looks like when it's actually focused out. But regarding Senator Gonzalez, I love the conversation about starting at intake and working through intake and showing exactly what we are doing and what we are expected or what is expected of us. That's a better answer. And starting at intake, starting the day that they sign, walking into the House or the Senate as a new representative or a senator. However, and I'm glad Rep. Sober brought it up and I'm glad Director DeCeckel reiterated it and then Chair Mabry emphasized it. We are not in the position or you will not be in the position to determine guilt. That is not what you're here for. And so these are still allegations, and we will give the same benefit of the doubt that is given on the outside. We'll give here. You should, when you are determining counsel, 1,000 percent. These individuals need to be paid more, period. But what I will say is it's the same when it comes to alternative defense counsel as it is for these individuals. You guys have been very, very, very, very lucky in that the people who have accepted these contracts are doing them not because they have to, but because they want to. Hopefully, the increase or an increase will make it easier for those individuals to stay on and keep doing this type of work. But I just want to acknowledge, one, you have been very – we have been very, very lucky in the individuals that have been accepting these contracts and accepting these cases. And two, this is not the board – the board's issue is not that guilt or that innocence.

Rob Camacho. Thank you Mr Chair And I have a few points and I think some of my colleagues have already raised them First Senator Gonzalez I completely agree with you I talk to my own clients in my practice The best way not to get sued is don't do something to get sued over. And I think when you are an elected official, your duties, not only to your constituents, but to the enterprise and the entire institution that we have at the Capitol, deserves a higher level of care. and we should be training folks at the front end. But I want to caution, just similar to what Rep Carter said, you could be doing everything right. You could be following every rule and there'd still be a lawsuit filed against you. And we should be very careful about insinuating that if you don't follow a certain process or whatever, things happen and they're out of our control. And I just want to be very, very cognizant of that moving forward. And then Senator Gonzalez also mentioned about the budget, and I couldn't agree more. We're going to be $2 billion in the hole, a billion and a half, and the number keeps getting worse. But I think if you combine more training on the front end, more care that we have to take as elected officials to avoid these situations, sometimes they happen. And sometimes we don't get to drive what our litigation costs are. People just sue the General Assembly or sue individual lawmakers as they see fit sometimes. And that is just something that happens, and that is incredibly unfortunate, and it does take away from other priorities. every nuisance lawsuit every other lawsuit is taking away from the priorities that we have to provide for constituents and that is horrible but it is our situation and i just put that there and then last you said something um director decheco that i just want to think about as maybe an alternate path what would it cost you to hire this expertise in your office and have it on hand because if we are not like other states using the attorney general's office for our defense what would it cost you to have a mini firm within your office just for these instances? I bet you it could be far less than some of the rates we're contemplating. Alternatively, if that is not feasible and you cannot get that extra FTE, what would it look like to have a contract with certain practitioners in certain spaces? You have a contract for all-you-can-eat legal buffet for one year or two years, whatever it is, for employment matters. One thing is for contracts, one thing for constitutional issues. And those all-you-can-eat legal buffets could be right size and bid and whatever else, depending on someone's experience or what you need them for. So maybe they're not resident in your office, but when a lawsuit comes, these people are prepaid legal services for these different matters. I would love to see

Instead, just saying we have determined that it's a fair market rate to pay 75 percent or 50 percent or whatever, 90 percent, whatever it is this committee thinks is a fair compensation for those who are providing services to the General Assembly.

some eye-popping numbers this is what i mean and um and those are the things i learned because i'm bored these days director to check out thank you mr chair i just want to while we talk about sort of the idea of the matrix in some ways i i guess it would assume sort of ranges for different types of cases. But whether it's a matrix or whether it's just caps or setting what this committee wants to pay on cases, I just want to go back to Senator Weissman's point of we've been a you know, a market setter. And now we're, are we more of a market participant? And I want to just emphasize that in the last three years, we haven't had any attorneys reach out to say they wanted to represent legislative parties. We advertised in different areas. Sometimes it's just posting on our website. Sometimes I think we've done ads in the, done ads for this to kind of do an RFP to try to get people. And no one has taken us up on that offer, at least since I've been director to represent legislative parties at our rate. So there are limits in our ability to dictate what we will pay if no one will accept that work. And so I do part of what the committee does, and I hope will be part of its decision making, is ensuring that we have the best counsel available, because that's my goal, is to always have, when there's a party named in a lawsuit, that we are able to get the best representation possible. And that may include paying what they ask to be paid. And so part of this analysis will be ensuring that we can add more attorneys and grow our bench. And how we pay them, they may have more control over what they want to be paid than we necessarily want to pay.

Okay. Thank you, members, for the robust discussion. Representative Carter, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would add just maybe one thing to your recommendation, that the committee ask OLS to do research so that they can provide a memo to us at the next meeting so that while we still have the same members that's had this conversation, we could at least adopt a working policy for everyone moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it was just in addition to Rep Soper's request. We also had Representative Luck made a couple requests as far as the cases that we've had. I think that particularly and Representative Camacho's request about what, yeah, we've heard a lot of different things that I can try to include into this. On the one hand, it was maybe having an in-house litigation department, and then Rep. Locke also brought up in response, well, do we always have enough cases? Like, for example, I was just looking, our budget, our actual expenditures on legal fees in 2024, 2025 were $30,000. So that's a factor to consider about bringing a team in-house, what that looks like. Yep.

Senator Frizzell.

My preference is a single motion can accomplish this. And I think we have a single motion drafted. We do. We also have two separate motions. So I just wanted to make sure that we want to do what is in line with your preference. So with that I move under its authority in Section 2 Colorado Revised Statutes and Committee on Legal Services Rule 10 I move that for any action or proceeding filed on or after today and until the committee adopts a new standard first the Committee on Legal Services authorized the Office of Legislative Legal Services to recommend counsel who are not on the current roster of approved attorneys

Second.

Representative Camacho.

Senator Carson?

Representative Carter?

Senator Gonzalez?

Representative Luck?

Senator Roberts?

Representative Soper?

Senator Weissman?

Madam Vice Chair?

Mr. Chair?

Yep, Director DiCecco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You had previously requested that our office prepare a memorandum, and I just wanted to touch on that. Yes, so we, in our last meeting, when we had a conversation about retention of counsel for an unnamed person for an unnamed purpose. We requested a memo.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. At the last meeting, or one of our meetings this summer, we had this discussion about the appropriateness of, there was a request for retention for counsel in a workplace harassment complaint proceeding. And then this committee also just discussed the appropriateness of that in general. And at the end of the meeting, the chair requested our office to prepare a memorandum to sort of explore the possibility or what we would need to change in order to provide counsel in those meetings for anyone who was part of a workplace harassment policy complaint. Since that time, the House workplace harassment complaint has been named in a lawsuit filed by Representative Bradley. And I just wanted to check and see if this committee still, it was really actually the chair and listening to the committee had asked our committee to do that or asked our office to do that. And just wanted to see in light of the ongoing litigation about, which essentially goes at whether or not that process violates constitutional rights of the Representative of Bradley and whether it followed a certain policy, whether it's still appropriate for my office to be preparing a memorandum about providing counsel in that process. Thank you.

Senator Gonzalez. Biscuits. you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate and agree with that request to revoke. Looking backwards, I'd like to reiterate and just, again, uplift this point that House and Senate rules plus the workplace harassment rules ought to be updated with the clarification around potential consequences around litigation and what have you and representation in said litigation, looking forward and looking ahead, not looking backwards. And so that, I believe, would be more appropriate under legislative council and not necessarily under this committee. I just want to I won't be here. So y'all get to go deal with that at some point further on down the road.

Repelock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you provide a little bit more information as to why the rescinding? my understanding of that request wasn as relates to any specific matter before the body before the General Assembly or any particular committee at that present moment but just generally speaking as we move forward creating a policy vis-a-vis whether counsel would be made available in that instance, similar to counsel being made available for the ethics committee. And so I guess I'm not understanding why the existence of litigation puts the request of looking at just the different issues involved in that in jeopardy.

about what other laws would need to be changed or confidentiality requirements so the committee could have certain information. But part of it also was the appropriateness of where in the process an attorney could be useful, and that goes to the underlying what is the process and whether or not an attorney would be needed. And, again, that complaint seems to go to whether or not it is about the process itself. And so that's why the committee may not want my office to state one way or another anything about the process while there's pending litigation.

Seeing no further discussion, we will resend that request for now. And seeing no further discussion on any other items, the Committee on Legal Services is adjourned. Thank you.