Randy Barnhart

Colorado Judicial Politics - Facts or Fluff?

The Colorado Bar Association (CBA) recently put up a new website, Know Your Judge, which provides some information about the retention of judges at election time when you all, the voters, are the judges.

The website is super ugly, but try to get past that and decide for yourself whether it provides any truly useful information.

According to the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation, the so-called "Commissions on Judicial Performance were created in 1988 by the Colorado General Assembly for the purpose of providing voters with fair, responsible and constructive evaluations of judges and justices seeking retention."

"There is one commission in each of the 22 judicial districts and one state commission. Each commission consists of 10 volunteer citizen members: six non-attorneys and four attorneys. Appointments to the commission are made by the Chief Justice, Governor, Speaker of the House and President of the Senate."

Here's the website for all of the evaluations for the general election coming up in November: http://www.coloradojudicialperformance.gov/review.cfm/year/2010

Of all the judges up for retention, only one, Judge Mattoon down in Pueblo, as far as I can tell, received a "Do Not Retain" rating (from the Tenth Judicial District Commission).  See the rating here. Only one?

According to the new CBA site, after reading the evaluations, you "have the facts." I am not so sure. Much more information should be provided on the internet in order to get the facts.  The court of appeals judges, for example, do not make their "unpublished" opinions readily available--you have to ask the court clerk for any particular unpublished opinion. Orders by trial judges are rarely posted on the district court websites for all the world to see.

What would truly make for an informed decision to retain a judge or not to retain a judge is for the Colorado Supreme Court and/or the legislature to mandate that all substantive orders and rulings be posted on the web. What do you think?

5th Circuit Issues a Tarball

Professor Nash (Emory Law School) writes in the National Law Journal:

The appellate court has concluded that the absence of a quorum dictates that the judgment of a single judge — the trial judge — will control, notwithstanding that a panel of three appellate judges voted to reverse him.

You have to read the article to believe it. Click here.

Judge Kane - US District Colorado & Tech Connected Lawyers

I was tweeted some remarks made by (senior) Judge John L. Kane (US District Court, District of Colorado) to attendees of the 50th class re-union of the University of Denver College of Law, on May 22, 2010,some of which struck me:

Some things haven't changed. I still sit in a courtroom and watch lawyers, but two things are different now: First, my main interest is not learning how to try a case, but wondering what some nut will say next. Second, this time I get to grade the papers.

...

Outside the courtroom I can't hear a thing, but most of us at this age are in the same boat. I'm reminded of the three guys our age who met to have lunch. As they walked to the restaurant one said, 'It's windy.' One of the others said, 'No, it's Thursday' and the third one said, 'Me, too. Let's get a beer.'

...

Even if new graduates can find employment in the private sector, the social contract with law firms has completely eroded. What rewarded the Baby Boomers is no longer available to the Millennials: they have almost no chance of making partner, with the attendant financial security and status that was the quid pro quo for the client-service centered work ethic. What do they have to fall back on?

No doubt the learned judge has seen his share of nuts in his courtroom. Lawyers correspondingly wonder every time they try a case what nutty ruling will come down next from the bench. By his own comic admission, perhaps some judges do not hear, and thus misunderstand, the arguments presented.

As for the new lawyers coming out of the law schools, they should know that there are other avenues of life in the law besides joining an existing law firm. They can start their careers at pro bono shops with student loan repayments deferred. Or they can establish their own law firms, using all that technology bemoaned by the senior judge as the very platform on which to do so. A few can band together to start a firm, borrow some capital, and steal clients, by charging lower fees!, from the established firms. All that tech should allow them to lower fees and still make some serious money. The "social contract" which is eroding was not always the model for the legal profession--remember apprenticeships long, long ago? Entrepreneurship is the newer model for the law emerging from the information technology revolution.