Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Sunday, November 26, 2006 12:00:45 PM
My experience with the 4th Judicial District Retention Commission was so bad that I have been looking for the reasons for what appears to be a total failure to apply reasonable standards to my judge.
At the same time, I have been trying to determine why my judge has been so obviously reluctant to follow his own ethics rules and court rules which REQUIRE him to punish AND report attorney misconduct.
I have come to the conclusion that the issues are intertwined and that lawyers have far too much power in Colorado to impact a judge's career. There are four attorneys on each retention commission (40%) and six (60%) on the Commission for Judicial Discipline.
Now comes former Justice Kourlis' report, which suggests that half, up from 40%, of the retention commission members be attorneys. While I agree with much of her report, I think that she is going the wrong way. It would be much better to have one, or at most two attorneys on a retention commission.
From page 82 of the report:
Experience suggests that the size of the committee does not matter, although the composition of the committee does. Both attorneys and non-attorneys should be included, in roughly equal proportion. Attorneys and judges provide necessary experience and expertise on the court system, the role of the judge, and neutral measures for evaluation. Non-attorneys provide insight into the concerns of the general public; beyond the individual contributions non-attorneys make, their mere presence on the committee may cause the public to see JPE as more than legal insiders evaluating each other, and may create greater public confidence in the program.
While the report is heavily footnoted, with 358 footnotes in 98 pages of verbiage, this paragraph is totally without footnotes. Whose experience? Has any state ever tried cutting back on the number of attorney members, and if so, what were the impacts on both retention recommendations and on attorney discipline from the bench.
If the only purpose of including public members is to provide cover for the legal establishment, then why bother to have public members at all?
This is the second and last nitpicking essay on what is a really well done report. The first is below and has more links.