June 19, 2007 05:45 AM UTC

Veil of Secrecy

• 0 Comments
• by: Condor

In his June 18th Rocky Mountain News article entitled “Judges’ Conduct: A veil of secrecy”, Ivan Moreno discusses the shortcomings of Richard Wehmhoeffer, Director and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline.

https://www.rockymoun…

“But the commission won’t reveal the identity of judges accused of misconduct or what happens to complaints against them unless they reach the most serious level – a recommendation to the state Supreme Court to discipline a judge. That hasn’t happened in Colorado since 1986, when William L. Jones, a district judge, was publicly reprimanded for delaying a decision on a case.

The cloak of secrecy under which the disciplinary system operates puts Colorado in the minority – along with just 14 other states and the District of Columbia.

“There is a ‘trust me and stop asking questions’ attitude,” said John Andrews, former president of the Colorado Senate and one of the most outspoken critics of the state’s judicial system.

“Trust me and shut up. That’s sort of the message that lawyers and judges send to the public.”

Colorado’s Commission on Judicial Discipline was set up in 1966 to police the district court level of the judiciary and below. Citizens, judges and attorneys sit on the 10-member panel.

No judge removed

But in 41 years, the commission has never recommended to the state Supreme Court that a judge be removed because of misconduct. Instead, judges often choose to retire or resign when there’s an investigation pending against them. Once judges leave, the commission loses its power to discipline them, and the record of their misconduct remains private.

Rick Wehmhoefer, executive director and general counsel for the commission, said the fact that cases rarely rise to the level of a public reprimand is a good reflection on Colorado judges…..Wehmhoefer said part of the reason complaints remain confidential in Colorado is that the majority of them are unfounded. Of the 179 complaints reviewed last year, most were from people who disagreed with a judge’s ruling, the commission said in a report… A lot of times, Wehmhoefer said, people are simply looking for an excuse to get a judge in trouble…..”

As a review of the following formal complaints filed with the Commission and their respective responses demonstrate, however, Wehmhoefer has a talent for confiscating formal ethics complaints against judges on the immaterial basis that the Commission has no authority to overturn court decisions.  Thus the judiciary’s forty-one year record in Colorado, and the Commission’s, remains intact.

https://www.knowyourc…

It would appear that we have the Colorado Legislature, in part, to blame for the continued lack of meaningful judicial oversight as Moreno explains how John Andrews failed to convince his constituents to put a measure on the 2004 ballot that would make public all complaints against judges.

Moreno further addresses the situation of attorney regulation in Colorado stating  “On the other side of the bench, Colorado lawyers are already subject to closer public scrutiny. Since 1998, disciplinary hearings against lawyers are open to the public.”

The only problem is that John Gleason and the Attorney Regulation Counsel in Colorado are ranked second worst in the nation as they investigate less than ten-percent of the formal complaints that they receive annually according to HALT, a non-profit legal reform group from Washington, D.C.  Thus, no investigations means no disciplinary hearings and no lawyer regulation.

https://www.knowyourc…