2010 Annual Report
| Citation | Vol. 40 No. 6 Pg. 20 |
| Pages | 20 |
| Publication year | 2011 |
2011, June, Pg. 20. 2010 Annual Report
June 2011
Vol. 40, No. 6 [Page 20]
Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
Background and Jurisdiction
In 1967, Colorado adopted a merit system to appoint judges and also established the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (Commission). In December 2010, the judiciary consisted of 364 trial and appellate court positions, including 175 district court judges, 113 county court judges, 47 senior judges, 22 court of appeals judges, and 7 Supreme Court justices. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(d) provides that a justice or judge of any court of record may be removed or disciplined for misconduct and that a judge may be retired for a disability that interferes with the performance of his or her duties.
The Colorado Supreme Court adopted the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline (Colo. RJD), as authorized in Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(h), which are applied in conjunction with the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (Code). Colo. RJD 35, in conjunction with Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(e), provides for privately administered discipline, such as letters of admonition, reprimand, or censure, and for other measures that the Commission believes will improve the conduct of the judge. If formal proceedings are commenced, Colo. RJD 36 authorizes the Supreme Court to apply the sanctions of removal, retirement, public reprimand, or public censure, or to retire a judge based on a permanent disability.
Colo. RJD and the Code are published in Court Rules, Book 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Code was substantially revisedby the Supreme Court, effective July 1, 2010.
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, court of appeals judges, justices of the 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 (OARC) 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 (Colo. RPC).
* County judges in the City and County of Denver exercise dual jurisdiction over Denver municipal laws and state laws. Because the Commission lacks jurisdiction over persons serving as municipal judges, disciplinary matters for these judges are addressedby the Denver County Court Judicial Discipline Commission. Certain other cities have established disciplinary procedures to oversee the conduct of their municipal judges.
Grounds for Judicial Discipline
Colo. RJD 5(a) describes the grounds for discipline or disability measures:
1) willful misconduct in office, including misconduct that, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
2) willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties, including incompetent performance of judicial duties;
3) intemperance, including extreme or immoderate personal conduct, recurring loss of temper or control, abuse of alcohol, or the use of illegal narcotic or dangerous drugs;
4) any conduct that constitutes a violation of the Code; or
5) a disability interfering with the performance of judicial duties that is, or is likely to become, of a permanent character.
The July 1, 2010 revision of the Code reorganized the nine Canons of the previous Code into four Canons that guide judges and justices in their conduct:
* Canon 1. A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
*Canon 2. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
* Canon 3. A judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
Each Canon includes various rules. For example Rule 2.5(A) requires a judge to perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently. The rules are supplementedby comments and annotations* Canon 4. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
A judge's decision on the facts and the law that is disputedby a complainant does not provide grounds for disciplinary proceedings, unless one of the elements of Colo. RJD 5(a) is present (willful misconduct; willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties; intemperance; a disability; a violation of the Canons; or evidence of fraud, corrupt motive, or bad faith).
Other matters beyond the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction include concerns about a judge's overall performance and fitness for the position. Such issues are more appropriate for evaluationby the Commissions on Judicial Performance, which collect views from jurors, litigants, and attorneys in each judicial district regarding a judge's competence; provide periodic reports to the judge; and disseminate public reports on performance prior to the judge's retention election.
The Commission and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial