2015 Annual Report, 0716 COBJ, Vol. 45 No. 7 Pg. 23
Background and Jurisdiction
Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline
Formed in 1967 by the amendment to the Colorado Constitution that established a merit system for the appointment of judges, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (Commission) monitors the judiciary’s compliance with the Canons in the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct (Canons or Code). Originally, the Commission was named the Commission on Judicial Qualifications.
The Commission is responsible for disciplinary proceedings to enforce Article VI, § 23(3)(d) of the Colorado Constitution, which provides that a justice or judge of any court of record may be disciplined or removed from office for misconduct, or may be retired for a disability that interferes with the performance of his or her duties. Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline (Colo. RJD) govern the Commission’s disciplinary proceedings. The Code and Colo. RJD are published in “Court Rules, Book 1” of Colorado Revised Statutes.
Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(3)(e) and Colo. RJD 35 provide for privately administered discipline, such as letters of admonition, reprimand, or censure, and for diversion programs, including training or docket management reports, that are designed to improve the conduct of the judge. The Commission may commence formal proceedings to address misconduct for which privately administered discipline would be inappropriate or inadequate. In formal proceedings, 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. A portion of the annual attorney registration fees paid to the Supreme Court by each Colorado lawyer and judge provides funding for the Commission’s operations.
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 judges of the county courts (exclusive of Denver County Court), district courts, Denver Probate Court, Denver Juvenile Court, and Colorado Court of Appeals, along with justices of the Colorado Supreme Court and senior judges (retired judges who serve during vacations or illnesses and assist with busy dockets). Excluded from this jurisdiction are magistrates, municipal judges, and administrative law judges (ALJs).
• County court judges in the City and County of Denver are appointed and employed by Denver and exercise dual jurisdiction over Denver municipal laws and state laws. Disciplinary matters for these judges are addressed by the Denver County Court Judicial Discipline Commission.
• In addition to its oversight of attorneys under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC), the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (Attorney Regulation) is responsible f or examining Code compliance by attorneys who perform judicial functions as magistrates, municipal judges, and ALJs.
As of December 31, 2015, the Colorado state judiciary comprised 341 judges and justices, including 131 in the county courts, of whom 17 served in Denver County Court; 177 in the district courts (there was one additional district court position in 2015); one in Denver Probate Court; three in Denver Juvenile Court; 22 on the Court of Appeals; and seven on the Supreme Court. In addition, 42 retired judges served in the senior judge program.
Grounds for Judicial Discipline
Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(3)(d) and Colo. RJD 5 provide the grounds for disciplinary proceedings:
• 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
• willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties, including incompetent performance of judicial duties
• 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
• any conduct that constitutes a violation of the Code.
Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23(3)(d) also provides that a judge “may be retired for disability interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, of a permanent character.”
The Code includes 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.
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.
Each Canon provides Rules in support of the Canon (e.g., Rule 2.2 requires a judge to serve “fairly and impartially,” and Rule 2.5(A) requires a judge to perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently). The Code includes 38 such Rules, which are further supplemented by comments and annotations.
The Commission has no authority to revise or reverse a judge’s decision. Colo. RJD 5(e) mandates that a judge’s error in pre-trial orders, evidentiary or procedural rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, sentencing, or other matters vested in the trial or appellate courts under Colo. Const. art. VI, § 1 are not considered grounds for disciplinary measures.
Colo. RJD 33.5 provides extensive procedures for the evaluation and disposition of complaints involving disabilities. Disability proceedings focus on whether a judge has a physical or mental condition that is adversely affecting the judge’s ability to perform judicial functions or to assist with his or her defense in disciplinary proceedings. The emphasis is on diagnosis and treatment and may involve transfer to temporary judicial disability inactive status pending a determination of the nature and degree of disability.
The Commission’s disciplinary and disability functions are contrasted with the responsibilities of the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation (Judicial Performance). Judicial Performance collects views from jurors, litigants, attorneys, other judges, law enforcement, court staff, and others involved in judicial proceedings regarding a judge’s competence and overall performance; provides periodic performance reports to the judge; and disseminates public reports of its findings prior to the judge’s retention election.
The Commission and Its Executive Director
The Commission comprises Colorado citizens who serve without compensation, except for reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred in performing their duties. The composition of the Commission is determined by Colo. Const. art. VI, § 23 (3)(a) and (b). It includes two district court judges and two county court judges, who are appointed by the Supreme Court; two lawyers who have practiced in Colorado for at least 10 years, neither of whom may be a justice or judge, and who are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate; and four citizens, who are not and have not been judges, who are not licensed to practice law in Colorado, and who are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate. Members serve four year terms and may be reappointed. The list of Commissioners as of December 2015 appears at the end of this report.
Colo. RJD 3 provides for the organization and administration of the Commission, including the appointment of an executive director whose duties, subject to the general oversight of members of the Commission, include the operation of a permanent office, the preliminary evaluation and investigation of complaints, the maintenance of records and statistics, the employment of investigators and special counsel, the preparation and administration of the Commission’s operating...
To continue reading
Request your trial