1974, March, Pg. 128. The State of the Colorado Judiciary.

• Author: Presented by Chief Justice Edward E. Pringle

3 Colo.Law. 128

Colorado Lawyer

1974.

1974, March, Pg. 128.

The State of the Colorado Judiciary

128Vol. 3, No. 5, Pg. 128The State of the Colorado Judiciary[Please see hardcopy for image]Presented by Chief Justice Edward E. Pringleto the Denver Bar Association, February 8, 1974

My colleagues of the bench and bar, it has become a custom for the Chief Justice to report on the state of the Colorado judiciary to a joint session of General Assembly in odd numbered years. This is an even numbered year, so it is my great pleasure to have this opportunity to report to the people of Colorado through you on the state of our judiciary and discuss the significant developments in the judicial system during the past year. It is fitting and proper that I do so, because your efforts during the past decade and a half have contributed greatly to the development of a judicial system that has achieved wide national recognition. The close working relationship between the bench and the bar, in conjunction with the General Assembly, in improving the administration of justice which we have enjoyed this past fifteen years is seldom found in other states. It has been an important factor in our success.

Much has been accomplished, but we cannot afford to become complacent. This is a time when the fabric of our government structure is being sorely tested. Lack of public credibility on the Potomac means also lack of credibility on the Missouri, the Columbia, and the Platte. When any level or branch of Government loses public confidence, it affects all levels and all three branches.

The bench and the bar must be concerned about the dwindling public respect for the processes of law and must make every effort to inspire public confidence. In doing so, we must be ever mindful that the proper administration of justice is everyone's business, not just that of judges and lawyers.

It is now more important than ever that our judicial system provides sound justice exercised with reasonable speed in an efficient and economical manner with a minimum of difficulties. Only in this way can the judicial branch continue to be the cornerstone of a just and orderly society by providing the proper forum for the resolution of disputes and of offenses against society, no matter how seemingly small or insignificant the cause to be heard.

The pursuit of this goal is the concern of all of us. We must continue to exercise vigilance to assure that our house is in order, both as judges and practioners. With respect to the latter, the Supreme Court grievance committee has done an excellent job, but with the number of lawyers licensed to practice in this state constantly increasing, we felt the time had come to provide the committee with a full-time professional staff headed by an experienced attorney to investigate complaints. We felt we owed this to the consuming public which entrusts its affairs to lawyers and is entitled to have them act in a faithful, moral, and ethical way in carrying out their responsibilities. We envision that this investigative staff will not only accelerate the investigative process, but it will also relieve our already overworked and dedicated committee members of the countless hours they must now spend in making investigations.

129The primary reason for the attorney registration fee is to provide the professional staff I have been talking about. This fee was adopted by Supreme Court rule after consultation with individual members and committees of the bar. Another important reason is that we have had no idea of the number of lawyers who are actively engaged in practice in this state. Now for the first time, there will be an up-to-date list.

The size of the grievance committee will also be increased to fifteen members, so that there can be both investigative and hearing sub-committees to assure an even greater degree of due process in the determination of grievances.

As I stated earlier, the administration of justice is everyone's business. Chester Alter, former Chancellor of Denver University and former member of the Supreme Court nominating commission, has observed that the administration of justice is too important a matter to be left to the bench and bar alone, and with this observation I concur. For this reason, we are considering the advisability of adding some non-lawyer members to the grievance committee, and I have other plans for non-lawyer participation in the administration of justice which I will mention later.

In this connection, I would like to comment that the non-lawyers who have served and are serving on our qualifications commission have made extremely valuable contributions and have added another dimension to that commission's deliberations. The qualifications commission is now chaired by one of the two non-lawyer members, Dr. Leo Reithmayer, which shows the esteem in which he is held by judges and lawyers on the commission.

Reasonable speed in the disposition of cases is both an element of sound justice and a requisite for public credibility. The record shows that this is being accomplished, generally, in our trial courts and also at the appellate level, except for criminal appeals. It is to this problem that I would now like to turn my attention.

It is now possible to have a civil case argued before the Supreme Court within sixty days of issue, a dramatic change over the past two and one-half years---then it took twenty months from issue to oral argument. The Court of Appeals, despite the transfer of some 667 civil cases from the Supreme Court since its creation in January, 197C, is hearing cases, generally, within four months of issue.

The major delay problem, as I just indicated, is with criminal cases, and to solve this problem, four additional judges are needed on the Court of Appeals, with expansion of that court's jurisdiction to include criminal cases. Legislation to create these four judgeships and expand the court's jurisdiction has been introduced by Representative Strahle and Senator Cole, chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees respectively. This bill (H.B. 1060) has been reported out favorably by the House Judiciary Committee and currently is in the House Appropriations Committee.

Two years ago, it took nineteen months from issue to oral argument in criminal cases in the Supreme Court. This time lag has been reduced to nine months, but this is much too long a period, since added to that is time from filing to issue, which is now, generally, five to six months and longer in some cases.

Criminal cases, including appeals, should be disposed of as rapidly as possible to serve the interests of society and to provide...