Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Pages | 15 |
1996, June, Pg. 15. Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts
The issue of gender bias in the courts came into national focus at a 1986 meeting of the chief justices of state courts. New Jersey was the first state to study gender bias in its courts. In 1988, Joseph R. Quinn, then the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, responded to these developments by establishing Colorado's Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts. At that time, a total of nineteen states had appointed task forces. Today, the majority of states has undertaken similar studies.
Colorado's task force was chaired by two attorneys, David Wood and Katherine Tamblyn. The task force studied the Colorado court system and made findings over a sixteen-month period. Its work culminated in the 1990 report entitled "Gender and Justice in the Colorado Courts." The task force used a variety of means to gather its data, including: public hearings; informational listening sessions; meetings with attorneys; surveys of attorneys, judges, magistrates and court employees; court watching; sampling of court records; telephone calls; and letters from the public. Its research documented a widespread perception that gender bias existed in the courts.
Colorado's task force formulated the following basic definition of gender bias:
Gender bias exists when people are denied rights or burdened with responsibilities solely on the basis of gender; when stereotypes about the proper behavior of men and women are applied to people regardless of their individual situations; when men and women are treated differently in situations where gender should make no difference; and when men or women are adversely affected by a legal rule, policy, or practice that affects members of the opposite sex to a lesser degree or not at all.(fn1)
The 1990 report is organized into nine sections and is well worth reviewing in detail. It represents a truly impressive collection and assimilation of data, and is a thoughtful and compelling document. The 1990 report's overall conclusion is that "gender bias exists and is widely perceived by attorneys and citizens to exist in the Colorado judicial system, affecting both men and women."(fn2)
The 1990 report made many recommendations for action. One of the recommendations was that the Code of Judicial Conduct be amended in two specifics and that the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly prohibit biased conduct by lawyers. The Colorado Supreme Court since has made the recommended changes.
Canon 2 of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct was amended by the addition of Part C, which prohibits a judge from belonging to an organization that "the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin."(fn3) The commentary to that addition explains the basic concern that membership in or regular use of such organizations by a judge gives the appearance of impropriety and undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 3A of the Colorado Code of Judicial conduct was amended as follows to provide that a judge should perform the duties of his or her office impartially and diligently:
A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(9) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including, but not limited to, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.(fn4)
The commentary to Canon 3A makes it clear that facial expressions and body language as well as speech are included in the prohibition of this canon. Further, that commentary instructs judges to be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.
The Colorado Supreme Court also amended the ABA model rules for attorney conduct to add part (f) to Rule 1.2, Scope of Representation, as follows:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that exhibits or is intended to appeal to or engender bias against a person on account of that person's race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial