presents a question of law, which we consider de novo. See People v. Trupp, 51 P.3d 985, 987-88 (Colo.2002) (interpretation of rules calls for de novo review). We decline to adopt Bass’ narrow reading of the word “petition” in C.R.C.P. 251.23(c). Instead, we hold that a “petition” is any filing by an interested party that brings the issue of disability to the attention of the PDJ and provides sufficient notice of the issue to the attorney-respondent. Notice is sufficient when it adequately informs the attorney-respondent that an “interested party” requests that the PDJ take action to determine whether the attorney-respondent is mentally or emotionally incapable of practicing law or defending against a disciplinary complaint. Cf. People v. Stillman, 42 P.3d 88, 93 (O.P.D.J.2002) (<HOLDING>). The December 2004 status report satisfies our
holding that a breach of the rules of professional conduct would not justify setting aside a divorce judgment and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures holding that 1 even if some conduct is not actionable as securities fraud that conduct cannot support a civil rico claim if it was also undertaken in connection with the purchase of a security and 2 conduct in maintaining ponzi scheme was conduct undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of securities holding that notice in a disciplinary setting is adequate where the attorneyrespondent is provided with a recitation of the facts revealing the offensive conduct and also the identification of the legal prohibition which proclaims such conduct violative of the rules applicable to a lawyers conduct holding that school disciplinary rule proscribing conduct as well as admonition by teacher provided adequate notice to student that such conduct would subject him to sanctions notwithstanding lack of specific penalty enunciated in school handbook