sheriff to remove the children from the home. Buchner, believing the deputy sheriff was authorized to take the children, made them leave with the deputy sheriff and Jaramillo. Buchner learned later that the deputy sheriff was Jaramillo's friend and did not have authorization to remove the children. Jaramillo did not respond to a request for information and failed to cooperate with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel's investigation. The entry of default established a violation of prior rule C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) and C.R.C.P. 251.5(d)(failure to respond to a request by the Regulation Counsel) based on Jaramillo's failure to cooperate with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel's investigation of this matter. Colo. RPC 8.4(h) is the remaining charge in count two upon which o.1996)(<HOLDING>); People v. Good, 893 P.2d 101, 104
holding that attorneys engaging in conduct involving dishonesty amounts to conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law holding that the circuit courts finding of some doubt as to defendants fitness for trial is not a proper ground for granting postconviction relief and ordering a fitness hearing holding that a finding that particular conduct amounts to gross negligence does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive holding intent as an element for disciplining an attorney for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty fraud deceit or misrepresentation is proven by establishing that the conduct was deliberate or knowing holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice