Christman v. People, 367 P.3d 1204

Andrea Christman was admitted to the Colorado bar in 2010 and immediately suspended by court order; she stipulated to a one-year-and-one-day suspension in 2014 for misconduct in six client matters.
Misconduct included failures of competence, diligence, communication, withdrawal, and trust-account supervision across family-law, real-property, and civil-defense matters resulting in prejudice to clients (default judgment, improper partition decree, uncompleted PERA transfer, unresolved child-support issues).
She moved to New Mexico, worked as an associate then as an administrative law judge (ALJ), and was reciprocally suspended in New Mexico; she seeks reinstatement in Colorado in 2015 and testified pro se at the hearing.
At the reinstatement hearing she relied on her ALJ experience, CLE coursework, community service, and personal remediation but provided no documentary corroboration, witness affidavits, or prehearing brief and missed several procedural deadlines.
The Hearing Board found she complied with the technical disciplinary requirements and paid costs, but her unsupported testimony failed to prove fitness to practice or clear-and-convincing evidence of rehabilitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with disciplinary orders and rules	Christman contended she complied with orders and paid costs	People agreed she met technical rule compliance	Board found technical compliance satisfied
Fitness to practice law	Christman argued ALJ experience and CLEs show current competence	People argued testimony alone insufficient without corroboration	Denied — testimony insufficient to prove fitness by clear and convincing evidence
Rehabilitation / change in character	Christman pointed to counseling, community service, steady employment, and claimed lessons learned	People emphasized lack of corroborating witnesses, failure to accept full responsibility, and continued patterns of inattention	Denied — no clear-and-convincing proof of rehabilitation; risk of recurrence remains
Presentation and procedural diligence at hearing	Christman argued pro se appearance and scheduling constraints justified limited evidence	People stressed omissions undermined credibility; Board noted missed filings and lack of exhibits/witnesses	Held against Christman — poor presentation reinforced doubts and contributed to denial

In re Price, 18 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2001) (reinstatement requires clear-and-convincing proof of compliance, fitness, and rehabilitation)
People v. Klein, 756 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1988) (factors for assessing rehabilitation and likelihood of recurrence)
In re Cantrell, 785 P.2d 312 (Okla. 1989) (reinstatement standards and burden of proof discussion)
In re Sharpe, 499 P.2d 406 (Okla. 1972) (rehabilitation and reinstatement principles)
Tardiff v. State Bar, 612 P.2d 919 (Cal. 1980) (consideration of petitioner’s character relative to original shortcomings)