Annual Report
| Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 38 No. 6 Pg. 19 |
| Pages | 19 |
| Publication year | 2009 |
2009, June, Pg. 19. Annual Report
June 2009
Vol. 38, No. 6 [Page 19]
The framework for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (Commission) is found in Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23. Under § 23(d), a justice or judge of any court of record may be removed or disciplined for willful misconduct in office, willful or persistent failure to perform his or her duties, intemperance, or a violation of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (Code). A judge also may be retired for a disability that interferes with the performance of his or her duties, if the disability is likely to become permanent. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(e) provides for certain sanctions short of removal or retirement, where appropriate, including suspension, censure, reprimand, remedial action, or other discipline.
Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(h) grants authority to the Colorado Supreme Court to provide by rule for the procedures to be followed by the Commission. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has established guidelines for the administration and activities of the Commission in the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline (Rules), which are applied in conjunction with the Code. The full text of the Rules and Code are published in Court Rules, Book 1, of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
For a fuller understanding of the scope of the Commission's disciplinary authority, it is important to note the following:
The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to disciplinary matters concerning district judges, county judges, Colorado Court of Appeals judges, justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, senior judges, and appointed judges. Excluded from this jurisdiction are magistrates, municipal judges, and administrative law judges (ALJs).
The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (ARC) is charged with disciplinary oversight of magistrates and ALJs, along with its jurisdiction over the conduct of lawyers generally, under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.
County Judges in the City and County of Denver are considered municipal judges; disciplinary matters for those judges are addressed by the Denver County Court Commission on Judicial Discipline. Certain other cities--for example, Lakewood--have established similar disciplinary bodies to oversee the conduct of their municipal judges.
Frequently, the Commission receives calls from individuals who (1) confuse the judicial disciplinary process with the appellate process; and (2) misconstrue a disappointing factual or legal ruling to be judicial misconduct and want to have the decision reversed on that basis. However, appeals of findings of fact and legal conclusions are reserved to courts of record under Colo. Const. art VI, §§ 1 and 2, and by provisions of Colorado Revised Statutes.
Other matters beyond the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction include concerns about a judge's overall performance and fitness for the position, rather than an incident or series of incidents of misconduct. Although there may be some overlap with the Commission's disciplinary role, such concerns may be more appropriate for consideration by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance, which disseminates information regarding a judge's performance prior to the judge's retention election. The Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance is accessible online at www.cojudicialperformance.com/index.cfm.
The grounds for judicial discipline that may trigger the sanctions provided in Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(d) are described in Rule 5(a). They include:
1) willful misconduct in office, including misconduct that, although not related to...
To continue reading
Request your trial