# OARC Multi-State Discipline Comparison — Source Audit

Prepared August 10, 2026. Official sources only.

## Source-audit verdict

**Publishable with explicit limitations.** The strongest comparison is about the front-end gate and the availability of an outside check—not a claim that Colorado imposes the fewest sanctions.

The defensible public conclusion is:

> **Why is Colorado so different?** In the same reporting year, Colorado sent 205 of 4,431 complaints—4.6%—to its Trial Division for further investigation. Arizona referred 523 of 2,969 charges—17.6%—to investigation. Oregon published a 14.0% referral share to Disciplinary Counsel and reported 257 referrals. The reporting units are not identical, but the contrast is too large to dismiss as wording alone. Arizona also had 1.63 million more residents than Colorado while reporting 1,462 fewer intake units. And funding does not supply an obvious answer: Colorado, Arizona, Texas, and Washington all report systems funded principally or entirely by lawyer fees or dues; Oregon likewise relies heavily on licensing fees.

## What the official sources support

1. **Colorado's beyond-intake share is unusually small.** OARC's own 2025 report states that central intake received 4,624 calls or written requests and processed 210 to the Trial Division for further investigation: 4.54%.
2. **Arizona is the cleanest published comparison.** Its official 2024 report states that 2,969 charges were received and 523 were referred to investigation: 17.62%, about 3.8 times Colorado's same-year 4.63% share. Arizona also reports that those 523 referred charges involved 313 lawyers; Colorado publishes no comparable unique-respondent count.
3. **Oregon is a useful but differently denominated comparison.** Oregon opened 1,756 inquiries, resolved 1,869, and referred 257 to Disciplinary Counsel. Its report publishes a 14.0% referral share and separately says referrals were approximately 16.3% of matters evaluated on the merits. Because opened, resolved, and referred matters are not identified as one closed cohort, the analysis uses Oregon's published 14.0% rather than calculating a new rate from mismatched counts.
4. **Several states place mixed public or independent bodies between staff and final closure.** Arizona's probable-cause committee includes public members; Texas provides an appeal to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals and mixed lawyer/public summary panels; Washington's mixed lawyer/community review committees can order further investigation or a hearing.
5. **Funding does not explain the contrast by itself.** The comparison systems are also funded principally by the regulated profession.

## Direct front-end comparison

| Jurisdiction | Reporting period | Published intake counts | Referred for further investigation | Published share | Complainant check outside intake office | Careful interpretation |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|---|
| Colorado | 2024 | 4,431 complaints | 205 to Trial Division for further investigation | 4.6% | No appeal as of right outside OARC; Supreme Court supervision is extraordinary and discretionary | Directly stated in OARC's historical tables |
| Arizona | 2024 | 2,969 charges received | 523 referred to investigation | 17.6% | Complainant may appeal a State Bar dismissal to the Supreme Court's independent ADPCC | Closest direct comparison; about 3.8× Colorado's share |
| Oregon | 2024 | 1,756 opened; 1,869 resolved | 257 referred to Disciplinary Counsel | 14.0% published | General Counsel review remains within the Oregon State Bar and is final | Opened, resolved, and referred counts are not identified as a closed cohort |

### Population and the missing repeat-respondent denominator

- U.S. Census estimates put Arizona's 2024 population at 7,582,384 and Colorado's at 5,957,493. Arizona had 1,624,891 more residents, yet Arizona reported 2,969 charges while Colorado reported 4,431 complaints—1,462 more intake units in the smaller state.
- On a simple population basis, Colorado reported about 744 complaints per million residents and Arizona about 392 charges per million—roughly a 1.9-to-1 difference. Because “complaints” and “charges” may not be identical intake units, this is a transparency warning, not proof of relative misconduct or merit.
- Arizona reports that 523 referred charges involved 313 lawyers. Colorado's annual report does not publish an equivalent number of unique respondent attorneys, the number who drew multiple complaints, or the disposition of repeat-respondent complaints.
- That omission prevents the public from testing whether Colorado's complaint volume is broadly distributed or concentrated among a smaller group of attorneys receiving repeated intake closures. OARC has the underlying complaint files; the public annual report does not expose that pattern.

### Same-year workload counts—not conversion rates

- Oregon reported 42 formal complaints in a year when it opened 1,756 new inquiries.
- Colorado reported 33 formal complaints in a year when it received 4,624 requests.
- The figures raise a legitimate workload question, but they do **not** establish that a particular incoming complaint became a particular formal case in the same year.

## Review structures

### Colorado

- Rule 242.13(b)(3) makes the intake disposition final as to the complaining witness.
- Buried in Appendix D on printed page 69 of OARC's 2025 report is an important qualification: at the request of a complainant or respondent, Regulation Counsel or Deputy Regulation Counsel reviews a central-intake determination.
- That is the same Office reviewing its own gatekeeping decision. It is not an appeal to an independent tribunal, a mixed public panel, or a meaningful outside safeguard.

### Arizona

- The Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee has six attorney members and three public members.
- It may direct further investigation, dismiss, order diversion or other measures, or authorize a formal complaint.
- The complainant may submit a written response and objection to the State Bar's recommendation.
- In 2024, it reviewed 252 matters, authorized 135 formal complaints, and granted one of 54 dismissal appeals.

### Oregon

- A complainant may request review by the Oregon State Bar General Counsel's Office.
- The official figures do not support presenting that review as an effective safeguard: in 2024, all 266 requested reviews were affirmed and none was referred onward. From 2020 through 2024, only two inquiries were referred after review.
- Oregon's stronger structural contrast is later in the process: an independent State Professional Responsibility Board evaluates investigative reports, and public members participate in the disciplinary system.

### Texas

- A complainant may appeal an intake classification decision to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals, an independent tribunal appointed by the Texas Supreme Court.
- The 2023–24 report lists 1,152 classification appeals and 146 reversals. That is 12.7% of all classification appeals, but the report includes appeals by complainants and respondents; it is not valid to label every reversal a complainant victory.
- A no-just-cause recommendation after investigation goes to a summary-disposition panel composed of two-thirds lawyers and one-third public members.

### Washington

- Four review committees, each with two lawyers and one community representative, consider grievant appeals and staff recommendations.
- A committee may order further investigation or a hearing.
- In 2024, the committees considered 453 matters, ordered 40 to hearing, and ordered further investigation in 15.

## How the systems are funded

The funding comparison is a control, not proof of causation. It shows that Colorado's low beyond-intake share cannot be explained merely by saying that lawyers pay for the system.

| Jurisdiction | Officially reported funding | What it means for the comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Colorado | OARC says annual attorney-registration fees fund the process and no tax dollars are used. ABA 2023 Chart VII reports 100% from registration fees, attorney fines, and certain costs. | Lawyer-funded |
| Arizona | State Bar materials say annual member fees—not tax dollars—fund lawyer discipline. ABA Chart VII reports 100% bar-association dues. | Lawyer-funded |
| Texas | The State Bar says it receives no tax dollars and is funded by membership dues and other bar revenue. ABA Chart VII reports the discipline-system budget as 100% bar-association dues. | Lawyer-funded |
| Washington | The 2024 discipline report says license fees fund the system and there is no public funding; under 2% comes from alternative sources such as recovered costs. | Essentially lawyer-funded |
| Oregon | The 2024 Impact Report says roughly two-thirds of bar revenue comes from licensing fees. The 2025 report allocates $254, or 37.2%, of the $683 active fee to Disciplinary Counsel and Client Assistance. | Principally license-fee funded |

### ABA 2023 budget context

ABA Chart VII reported the following total discipline-system budgets and active-lawyer populations. The scopes of state systems differ, so the last column is illustrative—not a cost-efficiency ranking.

| Jurisdiction | Reported system budget | Active lawyers | Approx. budget per active lawyer |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| Colorado | $8,862,858 | 28,684 | $309 |
| Arizona | $4,810,985 | 19,406 | $248 |
| Washington | $6,416,367 | 33,661 | $191 |
| Texas | $10,536,694 | 111,412 | $95 |

**The supported question is not “who pays?” Lawyers largely pay in all four systems. The supported question is: why does Colorado report the highest discipline-system budget per active lawyer among these four, yet send a far smaller share beyond intake than Arizona—and provide no appeal as of right outside OARC from final intake closure?**

## Claims rejected or narrowed by the source audit

1. **Rejected:** “Texas advanced 33.3% of the same grievances filed that year.” The Texas report warns that grievances filed and grievances classified are not necessarily the same cohort. Use Texas for structure and appeal, not a conversion rate.
2. **Rejected:** “Colorado investigates only 4.5% of complaints.” OARC describes central intake itself as review and analysis. Say “4.5% reached the Trial Division for further investigation.”
3. **Narrowed:** “Colorado provides no review.” OARC reports an internal review by Regulation Counsel or a Deputy on request. The accurate criticism is that Colorado provides no appeal as of right outside the same office from a final intake closure. The Colorado Supreme Court retains extraordinary, discretionary supervisory power; that is not an ordinary complainant appeal.
4. **Rejected:** “Oregon provides an effective dismissal appeal.” Oregon's internal General Counsel review referred zero of 266 requested reviews in 2024. Do not use it as proof of meaningful independent review.
5. **Rejected:** “Colorado disciplines fewer lawyers than every other state.” The ABA's population-normalized public-sanction data do not support that claim.
6. **Narrowed:** annual “investigated,” “charged,” and “formal complaint” counts are workloads, not closed cohorts. Do not describe same-year ratios as case-conversion rates.
7. **Narrowed:** Arizona's larger population and lower charge count do not prove that Colorado's complaints are more meritorious. They do show that population alone cannot explain Colorado's higher intake volume, and they sharpen the need for unique-respondent and repeat-complaint reporting.

## Recommended website language

> **WHY IS COLORADO SO DIFFERENT?**
>
> In 2024, Colorado sent 4.6% of complaints to its Trial Division for further investigation. Arizona referred 17.6% of charges to investigation. Oregon published a 14.0% referral share to Disciplinary Counsel. Different labels and non-closed cohorts prevent a perfect ranking—but they do not erase a gap this large.
>
> Nor does population explain Colorado's larger intake volume. Arizona had 1.63 million more residents in 2024, yet reported 1,462 fewer charges than Colorado reported complaints. Nor does funding explain it. Colorado, Arizona, Texas, and Washington all say their systems are funded by lawyer fees or dues, not public tax dollars. Oregon also relies heavily on licensing fees. Yet Arizona opens the investigation gate almost four times as often, while Texas and Washington give mixed public or independent bodies power to check staff decisions.
>
> Buried in Appendix D on printed page 69, OARC says a complainant may ask Regulation Counsel or a Deputy to review an intake decision. That is the same Office reviewing its own gatekeeping—not an independent appeal or meaningful outside check. When closure becomes final, Colorado provides no appeal to an outside tribunal or mixed public panel.
>
> Colorado also does not publish the respondent-level denominator needed to evaluate repeat complaints: how many unique attorneys were named, how many drew multiple complaints, and how often repeat complaints against the same attorney were closed at intake. Arizona reports that 523 referred charges involved 313 lawyers. Colorado's public cannot tell whether warnings are stacking up against the same attorneys.

## Official sources

- Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, 2025 Annual Report: https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDF/AboutUs/Annual%20Reports/2025%20Annual%20Report.pdf
- Colorado OARC, “Learn More” (funding): https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/learnmore/
- Arizona Attorney Regulation Advisory Committee, 2024 Annual Report: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/108/2024-ARC-Report.pdf
- State Bar of Arizona, consumer materials (funding): https://www.azbar.org/for-the-public/public-service-center-self-help-education/consumer-brochures/
- Oregon State Bar, 2024 Disciplinary System Report: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/2024DisciplinarySystemReport.pdf
- Oregon State Bar, 2024 Impact Report: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/OSBMeasuringImpactReport2024.pdf
- State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline 2023–24 Annual Report: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=65605&Section=Meeting_Agendas_and_Minutes&Template=%2FCM%2FContentDisplay.cfm
- State Bar of Texas, public FAQ (funding): https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContentID=66149&Section=FAQs_for_the_Public&Template=%2FCM%2FHTMLDisplay.cfm
- Washington State Bar Association, 2024 Discipline System Annual Report: https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/licensing/discipline/2024-wa-discipline-system-annual-report.pdf
- ABA 2023 Survey on Lawyer Discipline Systems landing page: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/surveyonlawyerdisciplinesystems/
- ABA 2023 Chart VII, Budget and Sources of Funding: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/sold-survey/2023/2023-chart7-budget-source-funding.pdf
- ABA 2023 Chart I, Lawyer Population and Agency Caseload: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/sold-survey/2023/2023-chart1-part-a-lawyer-population.pdf
- ABA 2023 Chart III-B, Sanctions Imposed: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/sold-survey/2023/2023-chart3b-sanctions-imposed.pdf
- U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, Arizona (2024 population): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/AZ/EDU685221
- U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, Colorado (2024 population): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CO/SBO040223