Skip to main content
First Regular Session | 75th General Assembly
Colorado General Assembly

PUBLIC
BILL SUMMARY For RETENTION OF COUNSEL FOR MEMBERS RELATED TO COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE COLORADO INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION

JOINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL SERVICES
Date Nov 20, 2025       Location SCR 357

Retention of counsel for members related to complaints filed with the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission - Legal representation retained for fifteen members of the General Assembly in connection with complaints filed against them with the Independent Ethics Commission


01:37:13 PM  
Senator Weissman, Chair, called the meeting to order and, after roll was called, stated that Senator Carson was present on Zoom and his camera was on, but the Committee was dealing with a sound issue. Chair Weissman then thanked all of the Committee members, including the substitute members, for being present at the meeting since the meeting was organized in short order and declared that, per the agenda, the purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to consider retention of counsel.
01:38:01 PM  
Chair Weissman noted that Representative Camacho and Senator Roberts notified the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) that they were recusing themselves from the Committee's deliberations, and Representative Joseph is traveling and unable to attend the meeting, so Representatives Boesenecker and Marshall and Senator Hinrichsen were appointed on a temporary basis to replace those Committee members.
01:38:55 PM  
Chair Weissman noted that the Committee is considering only the question of retention of counsel and is not here to get into the merits of the matter for which counsel was sought since the Committee is not the adjudicative body for consideration of those questions. Rather, the Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) is the body that will consider the merits of the complaints. Chair Weissman then recognized Ed DeCecco, Director of the OLLS, to provide opening remarks and background information for the Committee.
01:39:43 PM  
Director DeCecco reiterated that the the purpose of the meeting is to consider retention of counsel on behalf of certain members of the General Assembly and explained that seventeen members of the Colorado House and Senate have been named in complaints filed with the IEC by Colorado Common Cause.
01:40:12 PM  
Director DeCecco noted that Colorado Common Cause has made the complaints publicly available, and the complaints have been reported on in various articles. Director DeCecco explained the basis for the complaints, which allege that members of the Colorado Opportunity Caucus accepted lodging, food, and drinks that were impermissible gifts under Amendment 41. He indicated that, on Tuesday of this week, the IEC determined that the complaints were not frivolous, that the IEC would be notifying the members complained against of its determination, and that the members would have thirty days from that notice to file answers to the complaints. After the IEC determination, Director DeCecco indicated that fifteen of the seventeen members against whom complaints have been filed contacted him to request that the Committee retain counsel to represent them. Director DeCecco then named the fifteen members who have requested that the Committee appoint counsel on their behalf and noted that the other two members, Representative Bird and Senator Mullica, are not requesting that the Committee appoint counsel on their behalf.
01:41:33 PM  
Director DeCecco then explained that under section 2-3-1001, the Committee may retain counsel to represent a member of the General Assembly in all actions and proceedings in connection with the performance of the powers, duties, and functions thereof. Director DeCecco stated that there are two prior instances where the Committee retained counsel for members who were the subject of a complaint before the IEC. Those were complaints 16-20 and 17-18, both of which likewise involved allegations of members accepting things of value in violation of the Amendment 41 gift ban.
01:42:30 PM  
Director DeCecco recommended that the Committee retain counsel on behalf of the fifteem members who are respondents in the complaints and who have requested it from the Committee. Director DeCecco then explained the basis of the complaints and how that relates to the performance of their legislative powers, duties, and functions.
01:42:57 PM  
Director DeCecco noted that some of the members in question indicated a preference for counsel who was not on the OLLS's roster of attorneys, but after speaking with that attorney, Director DeCecco has since found out that they are not available to provide that representation.
01:43:13 PM  
Director DeCecco then informed the members of the Committee that he has spoken to Mark Grueskin, an attorney from the OLLS's roster, about representing the members; explained Mr. Grueskin's prior experience representing clients, including one member of the General Assmebly, before the IEC; and noted that Mr. Grueskin is willing to represent each of the members and enter into a joint defense agreement. Director DeCecco noted that all of the complaints appear to be effectively the same, just with the names changed. Director DeCecco also noted that, due to the volume of work and number of respondents, Mr. Grueskin has indicated that he would need to enlist the help of an additional attorney at his firm, Recht Kornfeld. Director DeCecco then made the Committee aware that it is not uncommon for counsel retained by this Committee to utilize other members from their firm to assist in the representation of their legislative clients.
01:44:31 PM  
Chair Weissman explained the appropriate scope of questions for Director DeCecco, stating that questions of a historical or procedural nature are fair game and reminding the Committee that they are not here to get into the merits.
01:45:00 PM  

Vice-chair Soper asked Director DeCecco if, in the context of a joint defense agreement, the hourly rate would apply per individual and thus be spread out across the fifteen members who have requested counsel, or if the rate would be collectively for the representation of all fifteen members.

01:45:29 PM  
Director DeCecco informed Vice-chair Soper that the rate is paid per hour of work and that the Committee currently authorizes $250 per hour, then stated that given that the contract would be with a third-party payer--the Committee--he is unsure if the Committee would receive fifteen separate bills for the same hour of work. Director DeCecco then inquired if that was what Vice-chair Soper was asking.
01:46:03 PM  
Vice-chair Soper clarified his inquiry, stating that he wanted to make sure that, since the complaints are essentially the same except for individual members' names, the Committee avoided a situation where one hour of work could turn into fifteen hours of work for the purpose of billing.
01:46:41 PM  
Director DeCecco reiterated that the Committee would pay for an hour of work and it would come down to the ethics of the attorney and how they charge for that hour, then stated his confidence that neither Mr. Grueskin nor his firm would charge for anything other than the work they have done.
01:47:16 PM  
Vice-chair Soper asked Director DeCecco if he could go into more detail regarding the precendence of members coming before the IEC and instances of these situations that were considered by the Committee on Legal Services versus instances that were not considered by the Committee.
01:47:39 PM  
Director DeCecco elaborated upon two recent cases and discussed the results of those cases.
01:49:20 PM  
Vice-chair Soper asked a follow-up question to clarify that in the aforementioned the cases, the Committee did in fact pay for the members' attorneys.
01:49:29 PM  
Director DeCecco clarified that yes, the Committee did pay for the attorneys in those cases.
01:49:36 PM  
Senator Gonzales asked Director DeCecco if fifteen different entries of appearance would be filed or if just one motion of an entry of appearance would be filed with a case caption with fifteen names on it.
01:50:25 PM  
Director DeCecco answered that since they are separate complaints at this point, there would need to be fifteen answers--one filed for each individual respondent. With that, he pointed out that the IEC's rules do talk about the potential for consolidation, which would ultimately be a determination for counsel of record, or the IEC upon its own motion may consolidate the complaints as well.
01:51:27 PM  

Senator Gonzales asked Director DeCecco how the situation might unfold if a conflict emerges and additional counsel is sought.
01:52:37 PM  
Director DeCecco responded that Mr. Grueskin has indicated that currently it appears that a joint defense agreement would be appropriate, but if at any point it is determined that there are conflicts or interests that are different that would ethically require Mr. Grueskin and his firm to no longer represent a member, then that person would no longer be represented by the group, and if they wanted to ask for an additional attorney to represent them, the Committee would have to approve that, or they would need to retain counsel on their own.
01:53:23 PM  
Senator Gonzales asked Director DeCecco what the state ultimately paid in the two previous cases involving the IEC that Director DeCecco had previously elaborated on.
01:54:27 PM  
Director DeCecco responded that he did not know the total amount but that he would be happy to look into it and provide that information, while additionally making it clear that these cases can proceed in different ways, so it is difficult to judge how many hours it would take.
01:55:21 PM  
Senator Gonzales asked about the common practices of the Committee on Legal Services in past situations where counsel was authorized--specifically, if counsel is authorized for the duration of a case or if a certain amount of hours is authorized and then a check-in is requested at a certain point.
01:56:44 PM  
Chair Weissman stated it was his understanding that in the past the Committee has handled the question of whether appeal is integrated or not differently for district court complaints versus IEC complaints and asked Director CeCecco to further illuminate that history.
01:57:08 PM  
Director DeCecco confirmed Chair Weissman's point and stated that there is precedence for a separate vote to retain counsel if a matter before the IEC is appealed since the matter then goes to the judiciary rather than being in front of the IEC, so the motion can be crafted the same way so that the representation is for the matter before the IEC and not necessarily for an appeal. Director DeCecco also pointed out that the rules of the Committee on Legal Services state that when retention of counsel has been authorized, upon request, the attorney shall report to the Committee concerning the progress of the matter. Director DeCecco also informed Senator Gonzales that he is not aware of an instance where the Committee has authorized a certain number of hours at the outset and voiced his hesitancy for the Committee to go that route.
01:59:52 PM  
Chair Weissman shared his thoughts that the more consistent motion for the Committee today would be to approve counsel through IEC proceedings and deal with an appeal later if an appeal occurs and provided additional clarifying information that the Committee's role is not to drive the litigation or representation strategy for any member for whom representation is approved--the Committee is a third-party payer. He noted that the Committee will get periodic updates of a procedural nature from OLLS staff.
02:00:53 PM  
Senator Carson asked Director DeCecco if the analysis used here is based on members of the General Assembly acting in their official capacity, or if it is broader than that.
02:01:26 PM  
Director DeCecco opined that it is broader than that, stating that the members have been named in their official capacity, and he does not know that he would draw a firm line between the statutory requirement and the members acting in their official capacity. Director DeCecco also noted that, in the Committee's handbook, in section 9 on page 28, it states that the Committee retains legal counsel pursuant to section 2-3-1001 in all actions and proceedings in connection with the performance of legislative duties, including when, per the second bullet point, an ethics complaint is filed with the IEC against a member of the General Assembly, so it is broader than when a member is acting in "official capacity." He noted as well that the Committee is authorized, but not required, to retain counsel.
02:03:44 PM  
Senator Carson asked if the Committee has been consistent in approving retention of counsel based on ethics complaints in the past or if the Committee has ever denied these requests.
02:04:12 PM  
Director DeCecco discussed recent similar cases and stated that recent precedent is to appoint counsel for members in front of the IEC.
02:04:51 PM  

Senator Carson asked if the Committee has ever approved counsel in an instance where a member of the General Assembly has received a campaign finace complaint against them.
02:05:27 PM  
Director DeCecco answered that no, he is not aware of any counsel ever being appointed in this instance since the view is that the campaign work a legislator does is different from their work as a legislator.
02:06:04 PM  
Chair Weissman provided additional analysis and hypothetical examples of personal issues of members of the General Assembly that would not be appropriate for the Committee to consider.
02:07:20 PM  
Director DeCecco provided additional examples of matters the Committee has considered in the past.
02:08:11 PM  
Representative Luck asked if the budget would be sufficient to cover the defense.
02:08:34 PM  
Director DeCecco answered that it is hard to tell because the amount this will cost is unknown--he believes the amount in the OLLS's budget for this purpose is $125,000, and there are two other cases currently going, so it will depend on the outcomes of both this case and those other cases.
02:09:41 PM  
Representative Luck asked if there is a supplemental process if the OLLS's budget is insufficient to cover the defense.
02:09:59 PM  
Director DeCecco answered that the OLLS receieves a single appropriation, so the Office has the spending authority to use other places in the budget to cover something that would be an overexpenditure for this particular item. If the cost went significantly over, then yes, the Office would need to get a supplemental appropriation or the Office would need to get additional spending authority from the Committee.
02:11:02 PM  
Representative Luck asked at what point a member in this case would have to seek counsel on their own and if it would be possible for individual members to ask the Committee for additional representation.
02:12:48 PM  
Director DeCecco voiced his confidence that whatever attorney the Committee retains will present the best arguement based on the facts for those individuals and stated that in a situation where the appointed counsel determines that they can no longer represent an individual, that person can come back to the Committee and request additional counsel.
02:14:43 PM  
Chair Weissman clarified that the Committee is not creating an attorney-client relationship with a vote today, it is merely authorizing one.
02:15:50 PM  
Senator Gonzales asked if a vote of the Committee would still be required if pro bono counsel were to come forward.
02:17:07 PM  
Director DeCecco responded that a situation such as that would be a separate agreement between an individual and an attorney, so the attorney would not be retained by the Committee.
02:17:41 PM  

Representative Marshall noted that the allegations revolve around caucus activity as opposed to individual legislator issues and stated his discomfort that there might be conflicting views on whether caucuses are public or private bodies.
02:19:36 PM  
Director DeCecco provided additional information and context regarding the issue of having private caucuses that are made up of individual members of the General Assembly and the Committee's role in retaining counsel in situations where complaints are raised.
02:20:35 PM  
Representative Marshall further elaborated on his opinion that more clear guidance is needed in the context of caucus activity.
02:21:29 PM  
Chair Weissman stated the motion (for the specific language of the motion, see below) and opened the floor for further discussion.
02:22:43 PM  
Vice-chair Soper asked if the motion should be amended to further clarify that the motion does not include any appeals.
02:23:23 PM  
Chair Weissman stated that the motion is correct based on precedent and explained that the motion is to approve counsel before the IEC and if, months later, respondents want to appeal to the district court, they would have to come back to the Committee for further discussion about whether to further approve counsel for the purposes of that appeal.
02:24:44 PM  
Representative Mabrey asked for clarity on the procedure for when Committee members can speak about their vote.
02:25:17 PM  
Chair Weissman informed the Committee that comments, as well as questions, before voting are acceptable.
02:25:25 PM  
Representative Luck asked if it would be appropriate to amend the motion to allow for the Committee to preemptively approve counsel for the two members who have not requested counsel.
02:26:05 PM  
Director DeCecco recommended that the Committee not amend the motion in that way since the members in question requested not to be represented by counsel, and also informed the Committee that, should those members change their minds in the future, the Committee could also appoint counsel through the polling mechanism, as authorized by statute.
02:26:44 PM  
Chair Weissman weighed in and agreed with Director DeCecco's points.
02:27:11 PM  
Senator Gonzales commented that, in connection to Representative Luck's question regarding the two members who have not requested counsel, The Colorado Sun recently reported that the complaint against Representative Bird has been dismissed.
02:27:45 PM  
Representative Mabrey voiced several comments about his views on the situation before the Committee and stated that his vote is rooted in the principle that everyone deserves access to counsel. Representative Mabrey also noted that this principle does not mean he wavers in his convcition that corporate dark money groups and the ultrawealthy exert far too much influence over the political system.
02:30:08 PM  
Representative Marshall voiced his support for limiting the motion to solely authorize representation in the matter before the IEC as opposed to authorizing representation in any appeals, citing a past situation in which a secretary of state cost the state $500,000 by taking an IEC complaint to the United States Supreme Court and stating he would request advice of our counsel about scrutinizing the IEC decision before considering whether to approve counsel if there were to be an appeal.
02:31:11 PM  
Chair Weissman acknowledged Representative Marshall's comments and noted that future determinations would belong to the Committee.
02:31:36 PM  
Vice-chair Soper voiced his agreement with the points raised by Representatives Mabrey and Marshall and reiterated that the Committee is not saying one way or the other whether what the members did or didn't do was right or wrong but is instead saying they are entitled to an adequate defense.
02:32:55 PM  
Chair Weissman reiterated several previously made points for the record.

02:34:14 PM
 Motion I move that the Committee on Legal Services retain attorney Mark Grueskin and his firm, Recht Kornfeld, for the defense of the complaints before the Independent Ethics Commission against Representatives Camacho, Carter, Espenoza, Lindstedt, Lukens, Martinez, Mauro, McCormick, Phillips, K. Stewart, and R. Stewart and also Senators Amabile, Daugherty, Michaelson Jenet, and Snyder in the complaints against them before the Independent Ethics Commission (any appeals must be separate).
Moved Weissman
Seconded
Boesenecker Yes
Carson Yes
Frizell Yes
Gonzales J. Yes
Hinrichsen Yes
Luck Yes
Mabrey Yes
Marshall Yes
Soper Yes
Weissman Yes
YES: 10   NO: 0   EXC: 0   ABS:  0   FINAL ACTION:  PASS
02:35:09 PM  
Chair Weissman voiced his confidence that Director DeCecco will communicate with Mr. Grueskin and that Mr. Grueskin will reach out to the members who requested counsel.
02:35:25 PM  
Senator Gonzales requested a status update at the Committee's meeting scheduled for December 11 concerning the remaining funds that exist within the $125,000 line item.
02:36:39 PM  
Chair Weissman expressed his support for the Committee receiving a status update at the next meeting.
02:37:02 PM  

Director DeCecco responded that, due to Representative Luck's previous question concerning if the budget will be sufficient, Christy Chase, Deputy Director, OLLS, found the current numbers: Of the $125,000 budgeted, $14,625 has been expended to date for this fiscal year, leaving $110,375 remaining. Director DeCecco then told the Committee he would be happy to update them about the numbers at the December meeting as well.
02:37:36 PM  
Chair Weissman asked Director DeCecco if there is anything further he would like to inform the Committee of before they adjourn.
02:37:41 PM  
Director DeCecco stated there was nothing else at this time and thanked the Committee members, particularly the substitute members, for responding so quickly and attending the meeting on such short notice.
02:38:07 PM  
Chair Weissman echoed the Director's sentiment and thanked the Committee members for their engagement.