Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:08:13 PM
In the course of preparing for the testimony at the legislature, I created a list that I called "Are Justices Vulnerable to a Non-retention Recommendation."
Here it is:
-------
The State Supreme Court has created a legal ethics system that protects lawyers and judges from public complaints. That makes them vulnerable to a non-retention recommendation if the case can be made. The case can be made:
1. It publishes ethics rules that follow the ABA models but then establishes court rules that make it impossible or very expensive for citizens to make complaints.
2. The rules require attorneys and judges to report misconduct by other attorneys and judges, but the modification is that the attorney making the complaint "must have no substantial doubt."
3. There is no mechanism to stop misconduct that is ongoing. Both Attorney Regulation and Judicial Discipline refuse to act claiming the Supreme Court has withheld jurisdiction.
4. Through court filings, I know of an individual who has made a complaint against a District Judge for failing for two years to rule on a motion to recuse herself. State law gives her 90 days. Judicial Discipline refuses to act because it would be "interfering" with an active case. Most citizens want policing agencies to stop lawbreaking and that includes lawbreaking by judges.
5. Colorado was the last state in the nation to establish a fund to compensate people damaged by attorneys.
6. The fund does not cover individuals who are intentionally damaged by opposing attorneys. In my case, I have both a written admission and a judgment against an attorney involving attorney misconduct, but cannot collect from this fund.
7. Two justices recently reported to the Bar Association that the fund has paid out an average of $120,000 each of the six years it has been in existence, or just over $5 per lawyer per year.
8. This low payout protects the Bar Association to the degree that it was willing to spend $500,000 to defeat Amendment 40. "Judicial independence" benefits the Bar Association by limiting the accountability of their protectors.
9. Unlike other professions, attorneys have no requirement to carry liability or errors and omissions insurance, making members of the profession judgment proof.
10. John Gleason of Attorney Regulation tells attorneys that they have little to fear from complaints but has a different story for the public.
11. The two justices who wrote the report to the bar association assured attorneys that they have little to fear from complaints.
12. Attorney Regulation publishes a quarterly report and provides it to the CBA for its lawyer only publication and web site. It does not put it on its own web page for the general public.
13. Judicial Discipline does the same for its annual report.
14. It is possible for an opposing attorney to stall a lawsuit for a year or more simply by not cooperating and then claiming that whatever happened was his fault and his client was blameless. Nothing happens to the attorney and if he manages this scam correctly, it is cost free to his client while running up the opposing litigant's attorneys fees.
15. There is an ethics rule against dilatory practices, and has been for at least 14 years. Court rules make it impossible to access that rule. According to a Columbia Law School study, the Colorado Supreme Court has never defined the term or punished an attorney for dilatory practices.
16. Attorney Regulation tells the public that it does not use public funds, apparently to keep the legislature from conducting oversight.
17. If Attorney Regulation gets sued, it asks the Attorney General to defend it, meaning that it is using public funds.
18. No individual in Attorney regulation is accountable to anyone but the Chief Justice and that includes the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, who serves at her pleasure.
19. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge is the only judicial official in the state not subject to a retention election.
20. No citizen can appeal an Attorney Regulation decision outside of Attorney Regulation. John Gleason, head of Attorney Regulation has not granted any appeal in the last five years, making the appeal process meaningless.
21. Attorney Regulation operates as a paperless office so that there is no easily audit-able paper trail. They regularly refuse to send written confirmations of their decisions.
22. In 2006, I learned that non attorneys could apply to be members of the court rule making bodies, but none ever had. I applied directly to the Chief Justice. I did not get the courtesy of a reply, indicating that she has no interest in fixing the legal ethics problems.
-------
That's the list, and it can, and will be added to. I have a special plan as to how to deal with the Judicial Discipline secrecy issue so that the commissioners can also evaluate that.