CLICS/CLICS2026A/commsumm.nsf
PUBLIC
BILL SUMMARY For RETENTION OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS IN BUTTREY V. LIEDER, ET AL.
JOINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL SERVICES
Date Oct 12, 2026
Location HCR 0112
Retention of counsel for defendants in Buttrey v. Lieder, et al. - Counsel Retained
|
|
|
10:04:30 AM |
Chair Mabrey provided
an overview of the agenda and reminded the Committee that any discussion
on the merits of the allegations in Buttrey v. Lieder, et al. in the context
of retention of counsel would need to occur during executive session.
|
|
10:05:55 AM |
Ed DeCecco, Director
of the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), summarized the complaint
for the Committee and stated that the statutory requirements of section
2-3-1001, C.R.S., seem to be satisfied based on the complaint filed in
this action.
|
|
10:09:35 AM |
Director DeCecco
then provided a brief reminder about the Committee's process for retaining
counsel and recommended that the Committee retain Eric Moutz, who was previously
retained in the case Chick v. Lieder, et al., for this case; informed the
Committee that Mr. Moutz's rate would be higher than the current agreed-upon
rate; and explained why the OLLS is recommending Mr. Moutz for this case.
Director DeCecco went on to inform the Committee that, due to the wages
and the volume of cases for which counsel has been retained, he is confident
that the OLLS will exceed its expected budget for retention of counsel
and thus will require a supplemental appropriation for the current year
budget to accommodate the fees the Committee will be authorizing.
|
|
10:13:52 AM |
Senator Gonzales
asked if there is a list of the matters on which the Committee has approved
retention of counsel and the billable hours that have been expended.
|
|
10:14:33 AM |
Director DeCecco
provided an overview of seven ongoing cases and the associated fees and
costs.
|
|
10:21:06 AM |
Committee members
discussed the need to increase the current hourly rate and asked about
whether rates in pending matters would be renegotiated.
|
|
10:22:50 AM |
Chair Mabrey pointed
out that contracts are in place with attorneys for current cases but agreed
that renegotiation could be possible if someone comes forward. |
|
10:24:02 AM |
Director DeCecco
and Chair Mabrey stated that this question could be answered in more detail
during the discussion of the next agenda item. Director DeCecco echoed
Chair Mabrey's point that the Committee has retention agreements with the
attorneys the Committee has chosen to retain. |
|
10:28:05 AM |
Representative Carter
asked whether the Committee was reconsidering the rate Mr. Moutz accepted
in the Chick v. Lieder case or if the higher rate for Mr. Moutz would be
limited to his retention in the Buttrey v. Lieder case.
|
|
10:29:12 AM |
Chair Mabrey clarified
that the rate on the Chick v. Lieder case stands as is, and the Committee's
current discussion concerns the rate on the new case.
|
|
10:30:16 AM |
Senator Weissman
voiced support for appointing Mr. Moutz under the current circumstances
since employment law cases are different from cases the Committee has commonly
seen and Mr. Moutz already has experience in this area due to being retained
for the previous case. |
|
10:35:18 AM |
Chair Mabrey stated
that motions are needed for whether to retain counsel for Representative
Lieder and for the House of Representatives.
|
10:36:54 AM
|
Motion |
I move that the Committee retain Eric Moutz and his firm, The Law Offices of Eric J. Moutz, LLC, for the defense of Representative Sheila Lieder in the lawsuit against Representative Lieder and the Colorado House of Representatives filed in the Denver District Court, and in any related administrative matters filed, and that the Committee waive the hourly rate limit in order to retain such counsel. |
|
| Moved |
Frizell |
|
| Seconded |
Soper |
|
|
|
|
Camacho |
Yes |
|
|
Carson |
Yes |
|
|
Carter |
Yes |
|
|
Gonzales J. |
Yes |
|
|
Luck |
Yes |
|
|
Roberts |
Yes |
|
|
Soper |
Yes |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
Frizell |
Yes |
|
|
Mabrey |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
|
|
|
|
10:38:34 AM |
Director DeCecco
provided an overview of three potential attorneys that the Committee could
retain for the House of Representatives related to the complaint.
|
|
10:44:41 AM |
Committee members
discussed issues related to the development of the list and how litigation
costs versus attorney fees are billed.
|
|
10:47:11 AM |
Chair Mabrey stated
his belief that Brian Moore and his firm would be the best option for the
Committee to retain. |
10:48:39 AM
|
Motion |
I move that the Committee retain Brian Moore and his firm, Plaskov, Prescott, and Moore, LLC, for the defense of the Colorado House of Representatives in the lawsuit against Representative Lieder and the Colorado House of Representatives filed in the Denver District Court, and in any related administrative matters filed, and that the Committee waive the hourly rate limit in order to retain such counsel. |
|
| Moved |
Frizell |
|
| Seconded |
Soper |
|
|
|
|
Camacho |
Yes |
|
|
Carson |
Yes |
|
|
Carter |
Yes |
|
|
Gonzales J. |
Yes |
|
|
Luck |
Yes |
|
|
Roberts |
Yes |
|
|
Soper |
Yes |
|
|
Weissman |
Yes |
|
|
Frizell |
Yes |
|
|
Mabrey |
Yes |
|
|
|
YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
|
|
|
