Donald T. Trinen v. Supreme Court of Colorado

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) continuing legal education (“cle”) is required for Colorado lawyers. Attorney petitioner Donald Trinen (“Trinen”) contended that he had completed his most recent three-year compliance period cle obligation before Colorado’s DEI rule took effect, and that he was therefore not obligated under the rule. A hearing panel rejected this compliance defense and concluded that Trinen was obliged to present DEI hours. Trinen sought judicial review of the panel’s determination—a right Colorado law affords to every hcensed occupation, including conduct-disciplined lawyers. Respondent the Colorado Supreme Court (“the CSC”) ignored the judicial review request and suspended Trinen indefinitely. Trinen also contended that the DEI rule is void. A primary tenet of DEI is the promotion of racial and other identity-based discrimination. Racism in federallysupported education was held unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The study of a racist-based ideology does not, as a matter of law, promote lawyer competence—the base require­ ment for all cle. Both the hearing panel and the CSC refused to hear this invalidity defense. The questions presented are:

1. Does the Equal Protection Clause give an alleged cle-derelict lawyer the same right of judicial review for proposed suspension discipline that state law gives to every other licensed occupation?

2. Does the Due Process Clause give a lawyer the right to contest the validity of a cle rule he is being punished for violating?