July 18, 2019

Colorado Judicial Institute Seeks Nominations for 2016 Judicial Excellence Awards

CJIOn Tuesday, March 8, 2016, the Colorado Judicial Institute announced that it is seeking nominations for its 2016 Judicial Excellence Awards. The awards acknowledge the efforts of Colorado’s outstanding jurists in three categories: district court judge, county court judge, and magistrate. Nominations may be submitted by justices, judges, magistrates, attorneys, clerks, court staff, and others closely involved with Colorado’s judicial system. The nomination form is available online at the Colorado Judicial Institute website.

The Colorado Judicial Institute set forth criteria for evaluating nominees in each category. The district court judge nominees should have five years’ experience on the district court bench; be creative and innovative in dealing with courtroom processes; exemplify high standards of judicial excellence through a distinguished career; display extraordinary courage, tenacity, and energy in dealing with high-profile, controversial, or difficult cases; objectively, expeditiously, and efficiently manage cases and dockets; and be recognized by members of the bar, courtroom staff, and others as respectful and even-handed but in firm control of the courtroom. County court judge nominees should have five years of experience as a judicial officer in the state court system and currently work full- or part-time; efficiently, expeditiously, and objectively manage cases and dockets; be recognized by members of the bar, courtroom staff, and others as respectful and even-handed but in firm control of the courtroom; and be respected by and have the confidence of other judges, attorneys, court staff, and others. Nominees for the magistrate award should have three years of full- or part-time experience on the bench; explain the law in terms understood by everyone who appears in the courtroom; possess a demeanor and attitude of court accessibility to all; display a high level of open communication; efficiently, objectively, and expeditiously manage cases and dockets; and be respected by and have the confidence of judges, lawyers, court staff, and others.

For more information about the Judicial Excellence Awards and to fill out the nomination form, click here.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to Hold Ceremony Dedicating Oklahoma City Courthouse to Judge Holloway

holloway1On February 2, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that it will hold a ceremony on February 12, 2016, to dedicate the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City to Judge William J. Holloway, Jr. The ceremony will be held at 2 p.m. in the ceremonial courtroom.

Judge Holloway was the longest sitting judge on the Tenth Circuit. He passed away in April 2014 at the age of 90. He was born in Oklahoma and served in the U.S. Army during World War II. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Oklahoma and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He worked both as an attorney in private practice and for the U.S. Department of Justice before his appointment to the Tenth Circuit in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. He served on the Tenth Circuit for more than 45 years and was Chief Judge from 1984 to 1991.

In January 2015, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, introduced legislation proposing to change the name of the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City to honor Judge Holloway.  Senate Bill 261 was signed into law by President Obama on October 5, 2015.

For more information about the dedication ceremony, click here.

Contributing Mask for the Benefit of Denver Hospice is Equivalent to Fundraising

The Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board issued Opinion 2013-04 on August 19, 2013.

The requesting judge was asked to contribute a handcrafted mask to The Mask Project, an annual fundraiser for Denver Hospice. Masks are created by artists, celebrities, sports figures, and community leaders, and an online auction identifies each mask’s creator. The judge’s mask would identify her as a judge, but she noted that she would not solicit contributions or bids. The judge wanted an opinion regarding whether contributing a mask to The Mask Project would violate Rule 3.7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Board opined that contributing the mask would indeed violate Rule 3.7, as it is the equivalent of fundraising or soliciting contributions for Denver Hospice. The Board noted that the clear language of Rule 3.7(A)(2) and (4) prohibits both active and passive fundraising for a non-law-related non-profit organization. Although the Board noted that the line between permissible and disallowed may not always be clear, it opined that there is no such uncertainty in this instance.

For more information about the Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, and for a complete list of its opinions, click here.