May 18, 2012

First Judicial District Announces New Jefferson County Court Judgeship

The First Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet on Wednesday, June 27, 2012, to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of County Judge for Jefferson County. The new county court judgeship was created pursuant to HB 12-1073 and is effective July 1.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of Jefferson County and must be admitted to the practice of law in Colorado. Applications must be received by Monday, June 11. The appointed district court judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. Retained judges serve four-year terms.

Further information about applying for the vacancy is available here from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

William Alexander Appointed to Tenth Judicial District Court Bench

On Friday, May 11, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced his appointment of William Alexander to serve as a district court judge in the Tenth Judicial District, effective June 1. Alexander will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Honorable C. Dennis Maes.

Alexander, of Pueblo, currently serves as the Presiding Municipal Court Judge for the City of Pueblo. Alexander has served as a Magistrate in the Tenth Judicial District Court since 1994. Prior to becoming a Magistrate Judge, he was a Deputy Public Defender. Alexander served as a security supervisor for the University of Denver before becoming an attorney.

Alexander earned his bachelor’s degree at Columbia College of Aurora and a his law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Colorado Supreme Court Authorizes Transfer of Surplus Attorney Registration Funds to Colorado Legal Services

On Friday, May 11, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced that it has voted unanimously to transfer $750,000 in 2012, and another $750,000 in 2013, from the Court’s attorney registration fund to Colorado Legal Services.

Colorado Legal Services will use the funds to further its mission of providing pro bono legal services in civil matters to Colorado’s indigent population.

“Our profession has an obligation to serve all of Colorado, including those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer for representation in civil matters,” Chief Justice Michael L. Bender said.

Chief Justice Bender also noted that none of the monies being transferred come from taxpayer dollars or will have any future impact on taxpayers.

“The funds being made available to Colorado Legal Services come solely from fees paid to the Court’s Office of Attorney Registration,” he said.  “I believe all Colorado attorneys should see this as a wise use of resources to ensure procedural fairness prevails for all who come to the courts seeking assistance.”

The Supreme Court took the transfer request under advisement earlier this year when approached by the Colorado Bar Association and the Colorado Access to Justice Commission.  The Court found the attorney registration fund had a surplus and concluded that using some of the money for this purpose would have no negative impact on the Office of Attorney Registration or Office of Attorney Regulation.

Colorado Legal Services is a flagship provider of civil legal services and in the past few saw a significant downturn in its funding sources.  Without the Court’s authorization to transfer the monies, Colorado Legal Services would have been forced to close some of its offices and lay off numerous staff members.

New District Court Judgeship Created in the Sixth Judicial District

The Sixth Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of District Judge for the Sixth Judicial District, which serves Archuleta, La Plata, and San Juan counties. The new district court judgeship was created pursuant to HB 12-1073 and is effective July 1.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of the Sixth Judicial District and must have been admitted to the practice of law in Colorado for five years. Applications must be received by Thursday, May 24. The appointed district court judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. Retained judges serve six-year terms.

Further information about applying for the vacancy is available here from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Finalists Selected to Fill Judgeship on Twentieth Judicial District Court

The Twentieth Judicial District Nominating Commission has nominated three candidates for a district court judgeship created by the retirement of the Honorable James C. Klein, effective June 30, 2012.

The nominees for the bench are David Cheval of Boulder, Judy LaBuda of Niwot, and Bruce Langer of Superior. All candidates were selected by the commission on May 7.

Under the Colorado Constitution, Governor Hickenlooper has until May 23 to appoint one of the nominees to the position of District Court Judge for the Twentieth Judicial District (Boulder County).

Vacancy on San Miguel County Court Following the Passing of Judge Sharon Shuteran

The Seventh Judicial District Nominating Commission will meet June 4, 2012 to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the office of County Judge for San Miguel County.  The vacancy is created by the May 5 passing of the Honorable Sharon E. Shuteran.

Judge Shuteran was a fourth generation Coloradoan and resident of Telluride. She graduated from the University of Denver Law School in 1978 and was appointed to the San Miguel County Court in 1984. Prior to her appointment, Judge Shuteran worked as a VISTA attorney for Legal Services in Denver and then as a Deputy District Attorney specializing in criminal law. She was also a trained mediator and conflict coach. Judge Shuteran helped establish and preside over the San Miguel Alternative Court, a program for defendants with alcohol or drug problems.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be qualified electors of San Miguel County and must have graduated high school or attained the equivalent of a high school education as indicated by the Department of Education. Applications must be received by Tuesday, May 29. The appointed county court judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years before facing a retention election. Retained judges serve four-year terms.

Further information about applying for the vacancy is available here from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Governor Hickenlooper Announces Another Judicial Nominating Commission Appointment

On Friday, April 27, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced several Board and Commission appointments, including one more appointment to a Judicial Nominating Commission:

The Eleventh Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission selects nominees for district and county judicial vacancies. The commission is chaired by a justice of the Supreme Court, who is a non-voting member of the commission and consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. The member appointed for a term expiring December 31, 2017 is:

  • Mark Willis Pedigo of Westcliffe, to serve as a non-attorney and as an Unaffiliated from Custer County.

CBA Ethics Committee Updates Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation”

The Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee has been working on updating their Formal Ethics Opinions in order to reflect changes in the law, including the 2008 revision to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. As part of that effort, the Ethics Committee released an updated version of Formal Opinion 68, “Conflicts of Interest; Propriety of Multiple Representation” in December 2011, and it was published in the March 2012 issue of The Colorado Lawyer.

Formal Opinion 68 addresses four specific conflict situations:

1) representation of both a husband and wife in negotiating a property settlement before dissolution proceedings commence;
2) representation of both the buyer and seller in a residential real estate transaction;
3) representation of both the buyer and seller of a business; and
4) representation of individuals in drafting an entity agreement, and representation of solely an entity in its formation.

The Ethics Committee opines that, in the first scenario, the dual representation would be impermissible under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC or Rules) because even if the divorce settlement agreement is uncontested, it must be approved by the court, and counsel cannot represent two parties whose interests are adverse under Colo. RPC 1.7.

In the second, third, and fourth scenarios, which are all transactional, the Ethics Committee declines to issue a blanket prohibition on representing both parties to the proposed transactions, but rather notes that each individual situation will require a thorough analysis of the propriety of the representation.

Opinion 68 provides a thoughtful and detailed evaluation of Colo. RPC 1.7 and its comments. It thoroughly examines informed consent, including when and whether it is appropriate, what can be consented to, how to obtain informed consent, the need to obtain new consent when there are situational changes, and confirmation in writing. Each scenario listed above is explored in depth, and the propriety of dual representation is examined for all for sample scenarios. The message of the Ethics Committee is clear: an attorney must examine the specific scenario involving a concurrent conflict of interest with the utmost scrutiny and caution prior to undertaking representation of conflicting parties.

The Ethics Committee develops its formal opinions as a means for providing Colorado attorneys with guidance. However, they issue the following caveat:

Formal Ethics Opinions are issued for advisory purposes only and are not in any way binding on the Colorado Supreme Court, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, the Attorney Regulation Committee, or the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, and do not provide protection against disciplinary actions.

Governor Hickenlooper Announces More Judicial Nominating Commission Appointments

On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, Governor John Hickenlooper announced several Board and Commission appointments, including a few more appointments to Judicial Nominating Commissions around the state:

The Third Judicial District Judicial Nominating Commission selects nominees for district and county judicial vacancies. The commission is chaired by a justice of the Supreme Court, who is a non-voting member of the commission and consists of seven citizens residing in that judicial district. The members appointed for terms expiring December 31, 2017:

  • James S. Colt of Trinidad, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Republican member from Las Animas County.
  • Raymond M. McMillan of Trinidad, to serve as a non-attorney and as a Democrat member from Las Animas County.
  • Sisto J. Mazza of Trinidad, to serve as an attorney and as a Democrat member from Las Animas County.

The Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission recommends candidates to serve as judges for the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs the commission and is a non-voting member. The member appointed for a term expiring December 31, 2017:

  • Scott C. Johnson of Greeley, to serve as an attorney and as an Unaffiliated member from the Fourth Congressional District.

Criminal Procedure Rule 17(h) Revised for Failure to Obey Subpoena; Effective in July

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Rule 17(h) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure – Failure to Obey a Subpoena. The rule change comes after the Court requested comment last year. The new rule reads:

(h) Failure to obey subpoena.

(1) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. Such contempt is indirect contempt within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 107. The trial court may issue a contempt citation under this subsection (1) whether or not it also issues a bench warrant under subsection (2) below.

(2) Trial witness—bench warrant.

(A) When it appears to the court that a person has failed without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena commanding appearance at a trial, the court, upon request of the subpoenaing party, shall issue a bench warrant directing that any peace officer apprehend the person and produce the person in court immediately upon apprehension or, if the court is not then in session, as soon as court reconvenes. Such bench warrant shall expire upon the earliest of:

(i) submission of the case to the jury; or

(ii) cancellation or termination of the trial.

(B) Upon the person’s production in court, the court shall set bond.

This amendment was adopted on April 23, 2012 and is effective July 1, 2012.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 17(h), outlined as Rule Change 2012(05).

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Arthur P. Roy to Retire

The Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission invites qualified attorneys to apply for a vacancy on the Colorado Court of Appeals that will be created by the retirement of the Honorable Arthur P. Roy, effective November 23, 2012. Judge Roy will reach the age of 72, which is the mandatory retirement age for judges under Art. VI, Section 23(1) of the Colorado Constitution, on November 23.  The Commission will meet on June 12 and 13 to interview and select nominees for appointment by Governor Hickenlooper to the Court of Appeals.

Judge Roy received his law degree from the University of Colorado in 1969. He served in city and district attorneys offices for much of his career until his appointment to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 1994. Judge Roy is also a veteran of the United States military.

Eligible applicants for appointment to fill the vacancy must be a qualified elector of the State of Colorado and must have been admitted to the practice of law in Colorado for five years. Applications must be received by Monday, May 14. The appointed Colorado Court of Appeals judge will serve an initial provisional term of two years and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election. If retained in the general election, judges serve eight-year terms.

Further information about applying for the vacancy is available here from the Colorado Judicial Branch.

Change of Address, Bounce-Back Email, and Non-Admitted Appearance Processes Revised by United States District Court for Colorado

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has revised its rules regarding how the court will process attorney address changes, email bounce-backs, and appearances by non-admitted attorneys. It is important for attorneys to be aware of their obligations to the courts, especially regarding how to proceed when you change your physical address or email address or when you need to appear before the court when you are not admitted:

Change of Address:

Currently, clerk’s office staff compare the signature block of an attorney’s most recent filing with the attorney’s contact address information in CM/ECF and, when needed, will update the contact information to comport with the most recent provided address. The current process of checking for address changes for attorneys is very time consuming and impedes on the time needed to address the efficient docketing of case filings and court actions.

Compliance with local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M regarding notice of change of address falls exclusively upon attorneys. Clerk’s office staff should not provide attorney support work regarding the checking for a need to update an address. Staff will, therefore, no longer automatically check for address update information and will rely on proper notice by the attorney as required by the Court’s local rules. This revised process will go into effect on April 9, 2012.

Bounce-back Emails:

In 2005, when the court went live on electronic filing, the clerk’s office began to monitor bounce-back emails related to electronic case entries posted by clerk’s office staff, chambers staff, or attorney counsel. Typically, bounce-back emails occur as a result of counsel’s failure to update their email addresses. The monitoring process was initially implemented as a check to the innovative use of electronic filing and service and notice of the same. Use of electronic filing is now the standard process for all attorneys to post and receive case information.

As directed by local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.2D, D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M, D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.2D, and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M, counsel are to inform the court of any change of email address within 5 days of the change. Whenever an attorney filer’s email address changes, the attorney is to electronically update her/his ECF electronic profile to activate the new email address. As long as an attorney is in good standing with the bar of the Court, it is the attorney’s responsibility to keep his/her email address(es) current regardless of place of employment, whether or not counsel of record in an open or closed case, or even if no longer practicing law.

It has been the experience of clerk’s office staff that bounce-back emails resulting from wrong email addresses occur in a variety of situations. Attempts to determine correct email addresses are very time consuming and often unproductive due to non-responsive attorneys. A number of opinions from district and appellate courts exist citing the responsibility of counsel to monitor the docket of the court for the need to address such matters as maintaining up-to-date contact information, including current email addresses. Therefore, effective April 9, 2012, the clerk’s office will no longer monitor bounce-back emails. Should chambers have a question about a specific attorney’s email address, clerk’s office staff will certainly assist with any effort to address the question.

Non-Admitted Appearing Attorneys:

In the past, when an attorney made an appearance pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A, and the attorney was not admitted to practice in this court, clerk’s office staff would contact the attorney by phone, email, or letter informing her/him of the duty to seek admission or withdraw his/her appearance. An attorney may be contacted multiple times over a protracted period. Unfortunately, this time consuming process does not usually result in the attorney taking the requested action. When no action is taken by the attorney, the clerk’s office notifies chambers that the attorney has been unresponsive.

To streamline this procedure and focus the responsibility on the attorney’s obligation to comply with the local rules, the clerk’s office will begin using the following docket entry in place of the an attempt to gain compliance via direct contact:

“The Court construes that (name of attorney) has entered an appearance as an attorney in (cite the case number.) Pursuant to (D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A), only members admitted to the bar of this court can enter an appearance as an attorney. The attorney records of the court do not reflect that (name of the attorney) is a member of the bar. Unless an application for admission to the bar is received within 20 days of the date this entry, further action may be taken by the court.”

Streamlining the procedure will eliminate letters, emails, and phone calls by clerk’s office staff and may further assist in reducing associated work performed by chambers staff. The docket entry will provide notice to appearing attorneys and chambers. This procedure will go into effect on April 9, 2012.