Colorado’s ethics rules place clear limits on cold calling. Those limits matter a great deal for drivers accused of DUI charges. This article explains those rules in Colorado. It focuses on DUI cases and lawyers who mine jail logs and arrest records and explains why ethical DUI lawyers reject those tactics.
Colorado regulates lawyer outreach through several core rules. Three that stand out are:
Rule 7.1 governs truthfulness and misleading statements, Rule 7.2 covers general advertising and paid referrals, and Rule 7.3 addresses solicitation of specific prospective clients. The Colorado Supreme Court revised these rules in 2020, and Rule 7.3 was later amended again in 2023.
Colorado also publishes formal ethics opinions through the Colorado Bar Association. These opinions help apply the rules to real situations. Opinion 83, for example, discusses advertising, solicitation, and publicity. The rules and opinions work together to draw a bright line between broad advertising and targeted solicitation. Cold calls based on jail logs fall squarely on the solicitation side.
Rule 7.3 defines “solicitation” in a precise way. The rule covers communications initiated by or for a lawyer or firm. The communication must target a specific person, and the lawyer must know or reasonably should know that person needs legal services in a particular matter. According to Rule 7.3, the communication must offer to provide legal services for that matter. When that happens, there is a solicitation.
Rule 7.3 imposes specific limits on solicitation. Under Rule 7.3(b), a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by live person-to-person contact.
The prohibition applies when a significant motive is the lawyer’s or firm’s financial gain. “Live person-to-person contact” includes in-person meetings, live telephone calls and similar real-time interactions.
The rule allows narrow exceptions. It allows a lawyer touse live contact when speaking with:
Fresh DUI arrestees do not fit any of these exceptions. They are not business repeat-users for DUI services, and they usually have no prior relationship with the lawyer or firm. When a lawyer calls a recent arrestee, the motive is obvious – the lawyer wants paid work for the potential client’s DUI case. Rule 7.3 exists specifically to curb that behavior.
Many Colorado counties publish jail logs and arrest lists. These logs often show names, charges, and booking times. Some private services aggregate this information for a fee.
DUI lawyers know those lists exist. Some lawyers search for “DUI” or “DWAI” and pull those names, and some law firms assign staff to call those individuals immediately. Others mail packets, send text messages, or initiate direct-messaging on social media. This practice may feel sophisticated and “data driven,” but in reality, it targets people at their most vulnerable moment.
When a DUI arrest occurs, the person often feels terrified and confused. They may lack sleep, feel hungover, or still suffer impairment. They often sit in a jail cell, separated from family and support, and may not even fully understand the charges yet.
Rule 7.3 recognizes that vulnerability. It treats live solicitation of such individuals as inherently risky and coercive.
DUI practice intensifies those concerns. Alcohol or drug use may still cloud judgment. The fear of a driver’s license loss, employment consequences, and jail time magnify the pressure. A cold call into that situation amplifies the imbalance of power.
Let’s walk through the elements again and apply them directly.
Communication initiated by or for the lawyer.
Cold calls obviously satisfy this element.
Directed to a specific person.
Jail logs identify a particular individual, not a broad audience.
Lawyer knows the person needs legal services in a particular matter.
The log lists a DUI arrest and tells the lawyer exactly what legal need exists.
Offers to provide legal services for that matter.
The call pitches representation on that DUI case.
That is solicitation by the rule’s own definition.
Next, Rule 7.3(b) bars live person-to-person solicitation when money is a significant motive. Cold-calling DUI arrestees for paid representation checks that box instantly. The jail log does not create a preexisting personal relationship. The caller does not act as a public defender or court-appointed lawyer, and the arrestee did not invite the call. Because no exception applies, the rule prohibits the cold call.
Some DUI defense law firms blur the line between advertising and solicitation. They argue that using public records equals “just marketing” but Colorado’s ethics framework rejects that view.
Rule 7.2 permits advertising through any media. This rule allows websites, billboards, search ads, and similar channels, but these communications address the general public or broad audiences.
Ethics Opinion 83 explains the distinction. It notes that solicitation involves unrequested communication for specific legal employment. Advertising, by contrast, uses public communications with no direct targeting.
When a DUI lawyer buys a billboard, that is advertising. When the lawyer posts helpful articles about Colorado DUI law, that is advertising. When the lawyer appears in search results after someone Googles “Colorado DUI lawyer,” that is advertising. But when the lawyer dials a person by name from a jail log, the situation changes. The lawyer targets a specific person with a known legal problem, and this contact falls under Rule 7.3, not merely Rule 7.2. Colorado’s rules intentionally impose tighter guardrails on that behavior. They do so to protect prospective clients from overreaching and harassment.
Rule 7.3 focuses especially on live person-to-person contact. However, it also regulates written and electronic solicitations. Targeted letters, emails, or text messages to arrestees still constitute solicitations and remain subject to important conditions. They must not involve coercion, duress, or harassment, and must respect any request not to be contacted further.
Written and electronic solicitations also are subject to Rule 7.1’s truthfulness requirements. The message cannot falsely suggest an affiliation with the court or the jail, and cannot misrepresent the certainty of a “dismissal” or “win.”
Written solicitations may avoid the absolute ban on live contact, but they still raise serious ethical concerns in the DUI context. The audience remains vulnerable and often impaired, and timing is frequently immediate and aggressive.
Ethical DUI lawyers should treat these channels carefully. They should avoid any tone that feels predatory or exploitative and should provide clear disclaimers and encourage informed comparison shopping. Even if a communication technically complies with the rule, it can still feel wrong. Colorado’s rules set minimum standards, not aspirational ones, and professional integrity should rise higher than the lowest permissible tactic.
Rule 7.3 does not stand alone. Cold-calling behavior can also implicate other provisions.
Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer’s services. If a caller suggests special influence with the court, that violates Rule 7.1. If a caller implies government affiliation or appointment, that also violates Rule 7.1.
Further, Rule 8.4(c) and (d) function as “catch-all” provisions. They prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and also prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Persistent harassing calls to arrestees can cross that line. Misleading statements about deadlines and consequences can do so as well. These rules can apply even where advertising rules speak less clearly.
A DUI firm that pushes the envelope on cold-calling faces compounded risk. Regulators may allege violations of multiple rules simultaneously. That risk affects individual lawyers and the firms that direct them.
Ethics rules can sound abstract, but in practice, they protect real people in real distress.
A DUI arrest often happens late at night. The person may still feel the effects of alcohol or drugs. They may suffer from injuries or medical concerns, and they likely feel frightened about jail, license loss, and potential loss of employment.
When the phone starts ringing in jail or shortly after release, pressure escalates. The person may hear a fast-talking sales pitches, and may hear promises of “special deals” or “guaranteed outcomes.” At that moment, informed consent becomes questionable, and the prospective client cannot easily research credentials or disciplinary history. They cannot compare fee structures or approaches and may not even have access to a computer or trusted advisor.
Rule 7.3 recognizes this problem. Its commentary specifically notes the danger of live solicitation of vulnerable people.
Ethical DUI lawyers should take that vulnerability seriously. They should structure intake processes to support thoughtful decision-making and encourage prospective clients to ask questions and compare options.
Some firms treat jail-log solicitation as a core pipeline. They invest heavily in data services and call centers, and measure success in terms of “conversion rates” and “call-to-retainer ratios.” This model resembles high-pressure sales more than professional counseling. It commoditizes frightened people and their worst nights.
Colorado’s rules permit robust marketing. They do not prohibit lawyers from standing out in search results, and do not bar educational content, seminars, or community outreach. But the rules draw a clear red line at live solicitation for gain. When a law firm builds a business model on jail-log cold-calling, it crosses that line. That strategy disrespects both the rules and the profession.
DUI lawyers should challenge this culture openly. They should refuse to normalize “lead generation” at the expense of dignity and recognize that one lawyer’s misconduct harms the entire bar’s reputation.
Choosing not to cold call is more than technical compliance. It expresses respect for the people we serve and affirms that representation begins with trust, not pressure.
People arrested for DUI often ask a simple question: “Is it normal for lawyers to call me like this?”
The honest answer in Colorado is no.
If a lawyer or firm calls you out of the blue after an arrest, be cautious. Ask how they obtained your information, and whether they are court-appointed or government lawyers.
If the answer seems vague or evasive, treat it as a red flag.
You have the right to end the conversation immediately.
You have the right to request no further contact.
Under Rule 7.3, the lawyer must honor that request.
Take time to research attorneys independently. Look at experience, focus, and reviews, and verify any claimed honors or certifications. Check for disciplinary history on Colorado’s attorney regulation website.
Consider scheduling consultations with more than one lawyer and compare how they explain the case and the process. Compare how they discuss fees, expectations, and potential outcomes.
Most importantly, choose counsel based on informed judgment, not pressure.
A DUI case may affect your license, job, and freedom. You deserve thoughtful advice, not a high-pressure sales call.
Members of the public can raise concerns with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. This office investigates alleged rule violations and pursues discipline where appropriate.
If you believe a lawyer’s cold-calling crossed ethical lines, you may report it. Document the date, time, and content of the call, and save any follow-up texts, emails, or letters.
Colorado’s regulatory system exists to protect clients and the justice system. Rule 7.3 is an important part of that structure.
Colorado DUI practice demands strong advocacy and strong ethics. The stakes for clients are simply too high.
Lawyers who mine jail logs and arrest records for cold-calling treat fear as a commodity. They exploit vulnerability rather than support informed choice.
Ethical DUI lawyers should embrace these boundaries, not evade them. Attorneys should build practices on transparency, education, and client trust. They should reject cold-calling as inconsistent with both the rules and the profession.
Prospective DUI clients deserve better than a pitch tied to a jail log. They deserve time, information, and genuine counsel. Colorado’s ethics rules help deliver that protection, and the legal profession should honor both the letter and the spirit of those rules.
Colorado DUI laws are sone of the strictest in the nation. With hundreds of drunk-driving-related…
Every year, Colorado releases updated data on impaired driving crashes, fatalities, and court filings. The…
As Colorado grapples with new laws decriminalizing certain natural psychedelics, including psilocybin mushrooms, it is…
When Jay Tiftickjian speaks about law, his voice carries both authority and empathy. He has…
The Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in People v. Thomas, No. 22CA0901 (Colo. App. Aug.…
Recognition in the legal profession requires more than strong advocacy. It demands excellence, integrity, and…