The University of Colorado at Boulder Law School

1. CU Representative – Student appointed by the duly-elected Student Bar Association President to present the case for the school.
2. Dean – Dean of the University of Colorado Law School.
3. Faculty – All instructors who teach courses for credit for the Law School.
4. Faculty Review Committee – The committee, as constituted by the Faculty, that hears appeals from decisions of a Hearing Panel.
5. Formal Hearing – Any formal proceeding before a duly constituted Hearing Panel
6. Hearing Panel – Six members of the Honor Council chosen to conduct a Formal Hearing.  The members are selected in accordance with Section 7.1 of this Code.
7. Honor Code – The Honor Code (“Code”) referred to herein shall be the Honor Code of the University of Colorado Law School.
8. Honor Constitution – The Honor Constitution referred to herein shall be the Honor Constitution of the University of Colorado.
9. Knowingly – A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of a violation when:
   1. she is aware that her conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist, if the element invokes the nature of her conduct or the attendant circumstances; and
   2. she is aware that it is practically certain that her conduct will cause such a result, if the element involves a result of her conduct.
10. Recklessly – A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of a violation when he disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct outlined in the Code.[1]
11. Respondent – The person who is the subject of the alleged violation.
12. SBA – Student Bar Association.
13. Student Body – All degree-seeking students currently enrolled in the Colorado Law School.

It shall be a violation of this Honor Code for any student, whether or not currently enrolled in the University of Colorado Law School (“Law School”), to engage in or attempt to engage in any of the following conduct, which, unless otherwise stated, must be done knowingly or recklessly:

1. submitting the work (whether quoted words, paraphrased words, or ideas) of another, in a draft or final product, without attribution;
2. using any unauthorized source of information in the completion of coursework, when preparing for an examination, or while writing or taking an examination, or giving unauthorized aid of any kind to another student for such student's use in completing coursework or during preparation for, writing, or taking an examination;
3. making any material misrepresentation to the University, the Law School, or prospective employers as to any matter, including, but not limited to academic performance, extracurricular activities, or financial need; except cases of transcript falsification, which are handled under the Rules of the Law School;
4. submitting the same, or substantially similar, material for credit in more than one course, whether or not each course is offered at the law school;
   1. In General.  A Faculty member may authorize the use of previously submitted material in his or her course.  Students may be permitted to use work currently being prepared for one course in another course with the consent of both Faculty members. 
   2. Law Review or Journal.  The Faculty advisor for the law review or a journal must authorize the use of the previously or concurrently submitted material where the material is used for such purposes.  However, students may not submit for a grade in another course any material prepared for one for the journals or the law review unless both the Faculty member receiving the work and the Faculty advisor for the journal or law review know that the material was prepared for such purpose and expressly authorize the use of the work.
5. reading, taking possession of, making use of, or otherwise accessing any other student's or Faculty member's confidential academic materials, without such person's prior express or clearly implied permission;
6. writing or typing any examination in any place other than (1) one of the rooms in the Law School generally designated during the examination period for examination taking purposes by the Dean's Office or (2) a place specifically authorized by the Faculty member with the consent of the Dean's Office; 
7. intentionallyobstructing another’s access to academic materials;
   1. information concerning violations may be disclosed to the SBA President, a Dean, a Faculty Member, or an Honor Council member;
   2. information concerning violations must be disclosed within 14 days of discovering this information.
8. misuse or vandalism of library materials intended to, or having the effect of, providing unauthorized assistance to other students or making the materials unusable by others;
9. abuse of library borrowing privileges intended to, or having the effect of, obstructing the access of others to those materials, except that failure to return overdue library materials shall not be a violation absent exceptional circumstances;
10. (1) failing to disclose information concerning violations where the person knows that a student has violated any of the provisions of this Code that raises a substantial question as to that student's honesty or trustworthiness, or a substantial question as to that student’s potential fitness as a lawyer, or (2) failing to disclose fully any knowledge or information concerning the apparent violation of this Code by another student, when such information is properly requested by any person, authority, or tribunal empowered to investigate or otherwise act with respect to such alleged or apparent violation of this Code.

While the Faculty of the Law School has been vested by the Laws of the Regents with “jurisdiction over matters of academic dishonesty, under such procedures as may be approved by the Board of Regents,” the Faculty is of the view that the professional interest of students in their work fully warrants student participation in the formulation and administration of any code dealing with matters of academic dishonesty.  For that reason, this Code was prepared by a Faculty committee working jointly with a student committee and adopted after an advisory vote of the Student Body at a referendum.

It shall be the duty of all students and Faculty to report or otherwise treat any apparent violations of this Code in the manner provided in Part VI.

Jurisdiction to decide Code matters resides with the student's primary degree school rather than where the offense is alleged to have been committed.  A law student alleged to have violated the Honor Constitution while taking classes outside of the law school will be subject to proceedings before the Law School's Honor Council, following the Code's procedural rules, even though the substantive rules to be applied are those of the Campus Honor Constitution.  A student not enrolled in a law degree program who is alleged to have violated the Code will be subject to proceedings before the campus Honor Constitution's Honor Hearing Panel, following the Honor Constitution's procedural rules, even though the substantive rules to be applied are those of the Law School's Code.

Honor Council Members shall be removed for:

1. Violation of the Code, or
2. Dereliction of Honor Council duties, upon the unanimous vote of the other members of the Honor Council.

Section 5.8: General Honor Council Procedures

For the purpose of conducting meetings, formal hearings, or transacting any other business, the Honor Council shall have authority to adopt, generally in advance, in writing or otherwise, or on a case-by-case basis prior to the commencement of the first hearing in any formal hearing, such rules of procedure as they deem just and reasonable, provided, no rule or practice of procedure shall be inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Code, the Rules of the Law School, the Laws of the Regents or the State or Federal Constitutions. Should a procedural question arise during a formal hearing or any deliberation of the appointed Honor Council members relating thereto, the matter shall be determined by the presiding officer by reference to whichever of the following is the most relevant and authoritative: this Code, any rules previously adopted by the Honor Council pursuant to this Code, the Rules of the Law School, the Laws of the Regents, the State or Federal Constitutions, or the general principles of the common law.

Under Rule 2.1(j), all students have a duty to report apparent violations of the Honor Code. Apparent violations shall be reported within 14 days and may be reported to a dean, a faculty member, an Honor Council member, or the SBA President. Reports that are made to a dean, a faculty member, or an Honor Council member shall be referred to the SBA President within three days by the recipient of that report. The SBA President shall inform the Dean’s Office of all reported apparent violations within seven days of receipt. Within seven days, the SBA President shall also provide written notice to the student who has been reported for an apparent violation of the Honor Code, absent exceptional circumstances as determined by the Dean’s Office, CU Representative, and SBA President.

1. The SBA President and the CU Representative shall investigate every reported or referred apparent violation and shall, within 25 days following the receipt of a report or referral of such apparent violation, decide in consultation with the Chairperson of the Honor Council whether or not to initiate a formal hearing before the Honor Council relative to such apparent violation.  In cases where these officers disagree, the determination of the SBA President shall be final. A decision concerning the initiation of a formal hearing does not preclude the SBA President from settling the matter on terms agreed upon by the SBA President, the student involved, and the Dean.
2. A decision by the SBA President not to initiate a formal hearing for a reported or referred apparent violation shall be final, provided that before making such decision, the SBA President shall first discuss this decision and the reasons with the Dean, and the Dean concurs in the decision. If the Dean determines that the decision not to initiate a formal hearing is unreasonable, and pursuant to authority of the Laws of the Regents or the Law School Rules, the Dean may require a formal hearing.
3. If a decision is made not to initiate a formal hearing, the student who has been the subject of the investigation shall be informed in writing of the decision within seven days. The student shall also be apprised of his/her right under section 6.4 to request a formal hearing.

Faculty members may impose appropriate sanctions for violations of the Code, provided the Faculty member has taken the following steps:

1. reported the violation and proposed sanction to, and consulted with, the Dean;
2. received verification from the Dean that the proposed action would be appropriate without first referring the matter to the SBA President and the Honor Council for their further action;
3. personally, or through the Dean's Office, informed the student of the grade penalty; and
4. given the student the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Dean.

Nothing in this Section shall abrogate the Faculty members' duty to report the violation under Section 4.4.

Notwithstanding any provision in section 6.2, any person subject to this Code and accused of an apparent violation shall have the right to a formal hearing before the Honor Council in all circumstances. To initiate a hearing, the student shall provide written notice to the Dean’s office and SBA President expressly requesting a formal hearing before the Honor Council. The notice shall be delivered to the SBA no later than seven days after the student receives notice of a decision by the SBA President not to initiate a formal hearing.

Upon the filing of a complaint initiating a formal hearing, the Chairperson of the Honor Council shall, as soon as is reasonably possible, appoint a Hearing Panel consisting of 6 members of the Honor Council who shall conduct a formal hearing. The Chairperson shall be one of the members of the Hearing Panel appointed and shall preside at the formal hearing, unless the Chairperson should choose not to sit, in which event, the Chairperson shall designate which of the 6 appointed members shall preside at the formal hearing. In the event six Honor Council members cannot serve on the Hearing Panel, the Chairperson shall appoint a replacement. It is recommended that such replacement be a class officer, SBA member, or SBA officer. A formal hearing shall then be called by the Chairperson (or the CU Representative) as soon as is convenient, giving due consideration to the rights of all persons concerned.

All questions which would normally be decided by a judge in a jury case tried in a court of law shall be determined by the Chairperson (or his/her designee) as the presiding officer, after such consultation, if any, with such other members of the Hearing Panel as he/she deems appropriate. All questions which would in a similar instance be decided by a jury shall be decided by not less than five of the six members of the Hearing Panel. 

All formal hearings shall be closed and only the Respondent, counsel, witnesses and persons making a record of the proceeding for the Respondent or the Honor Council shall be admitted, unless the Respondent shall have waived his/her right to a closed hearing. 

A stenographic record may and both audio and video tape recordings shall be made of the proceedings before the Honor Council Hearing Panel. Such records, unless the Respondent has waived his/her right to a closed hearing, shall be treated as confidential. 

The SBA President or the CU Representative shall represent the Law School with respect to the complaint filed with the Honor Council. The Respondent may represent him/herself or be represented by a lawyer or by any member of the Student Body selected by him/her. In the interest of avoiding conflicts of interest a Respondent may not be represented by a Faculty member. 

The burden of proving any violation of this Code in a formal hearing shall be on the SBA President or the CU Representative and shall be by clear and convincing evidence. The SBA President or CU Representative has a good faith obligation to present issues and evidence that is favorable to the Respondent's case. Any finding of violation must be made by the affirmative vote of not less than five members of the Hearing Panel. Any finding of no violation must be made by an affirmative vote of not less than four members.

1. The CU Representative and the Respondent shall place all material he/she proposes to introduce into evidence during the hearing in a folder in the Dean's office prior to the hearing. The exhibits shall be labeled and indexed. These exhibits will be copied for the Hearing Panel members and opposing parties prior to the hearing. Any exhibits introduced at the hearing that were not placed in the Dean's office shall be allowed into evidence as justice so requires. All objections will be ruled on by the Chairperson at the hearing.  In all cases, the formal rules of evidence shall not apply.
2. The CU Representative may call witnesses, except the Respondent may not be called over his/her objection. The Respondent shall have the right to call witnesses, including those reporting the alleged violation who may be called as adverse witnesses, and to testify on his/her own behalf. All witnesses shall be admonished of their obligations to tell the truth, and all student witnesses shall be informed that the making of a false statement constitutes a violation of this Code. Except as such privilege may be waived, the Respondent and any other witness shall have the right not to give self-incriminating evidence.
3. The presiding officer of the Hearing Panel shall begin the hearing by reading the formal charges and initially asking the Respondent if he/she wishes to respond to the charges. The CU Representative may make an opening statement followed by the same opportunity for the Respondent.
4. Next, the CU Representative must present the evidence through witnesses and/or physical evidence. The Respondent may question all witnesses.
5. Once the CU Representative has finished presenting evidence, the Respondent may present evidence through witnesses and/or physical evidence. The CU Representative may question all witnesses.
6. At the conclusion of the Respondent's case, the CU Representative may present rebuttal evidence. The Respondent may question any witnesses presented in the rebuttal case.
7. Following the rebuttal evidence, the CU Representative may make closing arguments including his/her recommendations for sanction(s). Finally, the Respondent may make closing arguments.
8. At any time during the Hearing, members of the Hearing Panel may ask questions. The Hearing Panel members may examine exhibits as they are allowed into evidence, and during deliberations. Opposing parties may also examine exhibits as they are allowed into evidence, and may raise any objection at that time.
9. The Hearing Panel may call additional witnesses if additional testimony is required for a just and fair resolution.

Only the Hearing Panel shall be present during deliberations, at which time the Hearing Panel may review any evidence and any record made of the hearing pursuant to Section 7.4. 

Upon a finding of no violation, the charge shall be dismissed and no sanctions shall be imposed. The respondent shall be provided with written notice by the SBA President that the charge has been dismissed within seven days of the Hearing Panel’s finding of no violation.

Should the Hearing Panel be unable to make a finding of violation or no violation, the Chairperson, to the extent possible, shall appoint the remaining six members of the Honor Council to conduct a second formal hearing. In the event any one of these members is unable to serve, the Chairperson shall appoint a replacement. It is recommended that such replacement be a class officer, SBA member, or SBA officer. Should the second Hearing Panel be unable to make a finding of violation or no violation, the charge shall be dismissed.

Upon a finding of violation, the Hearing Panel has the discretion to recommend whatever sanction or sanctions it deems just and reasonable in the light of all the circumstances. At least four members of the Hearing Panel must agree on any sanction to be recommended, except that in order to recommend the sanction of expulsion from the Law School or suspension from classes, at least five members must agree on the recommendation. The sanction of expulsion or suspension for longer than one semester may not be imposed until reviewed and approved by the Faculty. Sanctions which may be recommended shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. no academic credit for the work to which the violation related;
2. assignment of a grade lower than that which otherwise would probably have been assigned, including a failing grade of "F", for work to which the violation related;
3. assignment of a failing grade for the entire course in which the violation occurred;
4. requirement of an additional semester's residence;
5. requirement of additional work for academic credit;
6. expulsion;
7. suspension from classes;
8. letter of reprimand to be kept on a non-confidential basis in the student's file.

Upon making a finding of violation or no violation, the Hearing Panel members shall prepare a report to the Dean setting forth a summary of the testimony, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. Should the finding be one of violation, the report shall also set forth recommendations for sanction. Members of the Hearing Panel not agreeing with a majority view or position may submit as part of the report their minority view or position. For use in future cases as precedent, a copy of the report (with the identities of all persons excised, even when the Respondent shall have waived his/her right to a closed hearing) shall be maintained in the files of the Honor Council. Copies of reports retained for this purpose shall be confidential within the membership of the Honor Council. Only final decisions reached by a Hearing Panel, located in the Honor Council’s files, and implemented by the Dean shall constitute precedent for future Hearing Panels. The Honor Council files shall be maintained by the Honor Council Secretary in the Dean’s Office.

A formal hearing resulting in a finding of no violation shall not be reopened by the Honor Council. A formal hearing resulting in a finding of violation may be reopened upon production of new evidence bearing directly upon the innocence of the Respondent and when, in the opinion of not less than seven members of the Honor Council at least four of whom were members of the Hearing Panel (if possible), the interests of justice clearly require it. A person seeking to reopen a formal hearing upon the ground of newly discovered evidence shall appear before the Honor Council and state the nature of the evidence relied upon, and the Honor Council shall determine whether the evidence warrants reopening the case. If a case is reopened, it shall be left to the discretion of the Hearing Panel appointed to conduct a formal hearing on the matter to determine whether the charges should be retried completely or whether the new evidence alone should be considered in connection with the old record. 

All reports of formal hearings, and the recordings thereof, conducted before a Hearing Panel of the Honor Council shall be submitted to the Dean for review. All reports and matters relating thereto shall be treated as confidential, except:

1. in cases where the Respondent has waived the right to a closed formal hearing before the Hearing Panel; or
2. in cases where the Respondent has requested identification under Section 9.4; or
3. to the extent necessary to effect the review procedures set out in this Part VIII or as are necessary to implement any sanction which may be imposed; or
4. to the extent the case is to be covered in a published report under Section 9.4. 

Any case in which the Dean disagrees with the report, or in which the recommended sanction is expulsion from the Law School or suspension for longer than one semester, shall be referred to the Faculty Review Committee, as provided in the Rules of the Law School. The Committee shall hold a hearing at which Respondent, with or without counsel, the student who served as CU Representative, and a member of the Hearing Panel shall be given the opportunity to present any further evidence or argument relevant to the case. After reviewing the report of the Hearing Panel and any recommendations submitted by the Dean, the Committee may:

1. dismiss the case, or refer the case back for rehearing by a Hearing Panel of the Honor Council, whichever the Committee deems most appropriate, if the Committee determines that:
1. the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole;
2. a constitutional right of the Respondent was violated;
3. the Hearing Panel acted without or beyond the scope of its jurisdiction;
4. any applicable substantive rule of law was erroneously applied by the Hearing Panel, and such error was not harmless; or
5. any applicable procedural rule intended for the protection of the Respondent was not substantially complied with and such noncompliance was not harmless;
2. affirm the findings and recommendations, and re-refer the case to the Dean for implementation; or
3. hear the case de novo and determine an appropriate sanction; provided, that this may only occur if the Hearing Panel found no violation, and if the Committee determines that the finding of no violation was clearly the result of a gross misinterpretation or misapplication of this Code, or was the result of an unreasonable failure to evaluate and weigh the evidence in a conscientious manner;
4. modify any recommended sanction, either to increase or decrease its severity, and as modified to re-refer the case to the Dean for implementation; provided, that this may only occur if the Committee determines, after considering the record as a whole, that the action taken would be just and reasonable in light of the sanctions which have previously been imposed for other violations of the Code or for other misconduct, and provided further, that this may only occur if the Committee and the Dean concur on the sanction to be imposed; if no such agreement can be reached the case shall be remanded to the same Hearing Panel of the Honor Council, for reconsideration of the sanction only, and the review process shall then be repeated; and
1. If the Hearing Panel and Faculty Review Committee agree on sanction then the Dean shall impose that sanction; or
2. If the sanctions recommended by the Hearing Panel and the Faculty Review Committee still differ after reconsideration, then the Dean shall choose between the two recommended sanction or may impose a lesser sanction; and
3. This review process shall repeat only once and the sanction imposed under this section shall not be reviewed further.

Except as to conduct governed by this Code to which the procedures of this Code shall be applicable, the Dean or the Faculty, or both, shall retain all other authority legally possessed by them to take appropriate disciplinary action for improper conduct on the part of a student or Faculty member.

Once a matter has been disposed of finally, unless the Respondent has waived his/her right to a closed hearing before the Hearing Panel of the Honor Council, or except to the extent the Respondent has waived any other right he/she may possess to have any matter or proceeding under this Code treated confidentially, all reports, tape recordings, records and the like relating to any formal hearing or the review thereof (except those items specifically identified for other treatment under this Code and except to the extent any such matters must, under University regulations, be referred to or transmitted to another office of the University) shall be sealed and kept in the Dean's office and the same shall be opened subsequently only upon the direction of the Dean, a higher University academic official, or a court of law. After 5 years, the Dean may direct the destruction of all, or so much of all, such material as he/she may determine is appropriate. Any material which is not destroyed shall be kept sealed in the student's permanent personal file.

During the first month of each semester, the Honor Council shall publish a report of all Code matters, including reports of violations, hearings, findings, and any other actions, which have occurred since the last such report was published (or during the past year if no report has been published). Such publication shall be made by posting on Law School bulletin boards, or in printed form for distribution only within the immediate Law School community. The report shall indicate the nature of any offense alleged, the findings, and the sanctions imposed, if any. The report shall not identify the accused by name, unless the accused shall have requested such identification in writing. At the discretion of the Dean, and subject to the same rule as to confidentiality of the identity of the accused, the report may include other disciplinary actions, considered or taken under Section 9.2. At least seven days before publication, a student who is the subject of the report shall receive a copy of the section of the report that discusses the student’s case. The student shall have the opportunity to attach a comment to the report of no more than 100 words, which shall be received by the Honor Council within three days of delivery of the report to the student. The comment may be edited for length, grammar, and accuracy, and shall be published as edited with the report.

Every provision of this Code shall become effective immediately upon approval of not less than two-thirds of the Faculty, or as soon thereafter as, considering the nature of the provision (e.g., signing Honor statements at registration), it is first realistically possible to implement such provision.