Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

TCL > March 2002 Issue > Court Business

The Colorado Lawyer
March 2002
Vol. 31, No. 3 [Page  111]

© 2002 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved.

All material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is copyrighted by the Colorado Bar Association. Before accessing any specific article, click here for disclaimer information.

From the Courts
Court Business

Court Business

Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee
Rule Change #2002(1)
Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions
Appendix to Chapter 36
Amended, Adopted, and Appended

 

As of January 10, 2002, the following instructions and corresponding forms are amended, adopted, and appended to Chapter 36 of Volume 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, Uniform Local Rules for All State Water Court Divisions. The forms can be found at the Court website: www.courts.state.co.us./scao/ forms/waterforms/waterindex.htm.

JDF 295W. Standardized Instructions for All Colorado Water Court Divisions.

JDF 296W. Application for Water Rights (Surface)

JDF 297W. Application for Water Storage Right.

JDF 298W. Application for Underground Water Right.

JDF 299W. Application for Change of Water Right.

JDF 300W. Application for Finding of Diligence or to Make Absolute.

JDF 301W. Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation.

JDF 302W. Pleading in Protest to Referee’s Ruling or in Support of Referee’s Ruling.

JDF 303W. Statement of Opposition.

JDF 304W. Protest to Revised Abandonment List.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, January 10, 2002, effective immediately.

By the Court:

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

Justice, Colorado Supreme Court

 

Rule Change #2002(2)

Chapter 37. Rules Governing the Commission on Judicial Performance

Amended and Adopted

 

The following rules are amended and adopted as of January 10, 2002: Chapter 37 of Volume 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Rules Governing the Commissions on Judicial Performance.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, January 10, 2002, effective immediately.

By the Court:

Nancy E. Rice

Justice, Colorado Supreme Court

 

Rule Change 2002(2)

Chapter 37. Rules Governing the Commissions on Judicial Performance

Amended and Adopted

Pursuant to section 13-5.5-103(1)(k), C.R.S., the State Commission on Judicial Performance (state commission) establishes the following rules. These rules have been approved by the Supreme Court and shall be applicable to the state and district commissions.

RULE 1. Duties of commissions

Commissions shall elect one member as a chair, or two members as co-chairs, to serve for two years, who will direct the business of the commissions, pursuant to statute, rule or guideline of the state commission.

Commissions on judicial performance evaluate the professional performance of justices, judges or magistrates and make recommendations to the electorate regarding the retention of individual justices or judges who stand for retention during any general election. In addition to other procedures and duties set forth in these rules, the commissions shall prepare and provide to the public a narrative profile and retention recommendation for each district, county and appellate justice or judge subject to retention. The state commission shall arrange to have the narrative profiles and recommendations of the state and district commissions printed in the ballot information booklet that is prepared pursuant to section 1-40-124.5, C.R.S.

RULE 2. Sources of information

Each commission, in evaluating the professional performance of any justice, judge or magistrate, shall rely on official sources of information, including:

(a) Questionnaires. The state commission shall develop a questionnaire that will be used by all commissions to survey attorneys (including district attorneys and public defenders), jurors, litigants, court personnel, probation officers, social services caseworkers, crime victims, guardians ad litem, court appointed special advocate volunteers and law enforcement personnel who have appeared before or have professional contacts with the judge or magistrate being evaluated. In addition, deputy sheriffs assigned to the courthouse will be surveyed. These persons will be randomly selected in numbers designed to achieve a random, statistically valid sample. These persons will be surveyed by direct mail questionnaires. The results of the surveys shall be provided to the commissions for use in evaluating the justices and judges.

(b) Interview with justices, judges or magistrates. Judicial district administrators will schedule interview sessions for judges and magistrates with district commissions. The state commission staff will schedule interview sessions for the appellate justices and judges with the state commission. All efforts to accommodate court dockets and calendars of commission members will be exercised.

(c) Statistics. Information concerning the caseload and case types of a judge or magistrate being evaluated will be gathered and provided to the chair of the district commission by the district administrator. Information concerning the caseload of a justice or judge being evaluated by the state commission will be gathered and provided to the chair of the state commission by the clerk of the Colorado Supreme Court and the clerk of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

If requested by the commission, the district administrator or state court administrator shall promptly provide information kept or collected by the district administrator or state court administrator on individual judges or magistrates, which may include the number of court trials and court trial days; the number of jury trials and jury trial days; and sentence modifications pursuant to section 16-11-309, C.R.S.

Effective for the 2004 judicial performance evaluation and performance evaluations thereafter, the district administrator shall also provide open case reports and case aging reports if requested by the commission.

(d) Oral Interviews. The state and district commissions may conduct interviews with other persons who have appeared before the judge or magistrate on a regular basis. The district commissions shall ensure that the persons interviewed have had professional contact with the judge or magistrate. Such oral interviews shall be completed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled interview between the commission and the judge or magistrate. The judge or magistrate shall be provided with a written summary of the interview that preserves the anonymity of the interviewee but informs the judge or magistrate of the substance of the interview no later than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled interview with the commission.

(e) Documentation from interested parties. Written information concerning a judge or magistrate received from an interested party may be considered by the state and district commissions provided it contains the author’s name and address and is received no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled interview with the justice, judge or magistrate. The commissions may make the determination whether to include the author’s name and address in the copy of the document that is forwarded to the justice, judge or magistrate.

(f) Public hearings. The state and district commissions may conduct public hearings to solicit public comment on justices, judges or magistrates being evaluated. Commissions are encouraged to conduct public hearings. Public hearings shall be completed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the scheduled interview with the justice, judge or magistrate. The district commission shall give notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to such hearing. Public notice shall be given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place in each courthouse within the judicial district, and by notifying local news media in each county within the judicial district. The state and district commissions shall conduct public hearings pursuant to the Colorado Open Meetings Law, section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S.

(g) Self-evaluations. The state commission shall develop self-evaluation forms that shall be completed by each justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated. The self-evaluation requirements may include, but are not limited to a self assessment of the justice’s, judge’s or magistrate’s strengths and weaknesses, goals for development and reputation in the legal community in the following areas: legal ability; integrity; communication skills; judicial temperament; administrative skills; settlement activities; judicial philosophy; community reputation; overall performance; and community service.

(h) Courtroom observation. Commission members are strongly encouraged to make onsite visits to the courtroom to observe any or all of the justices, judges or magistrates they are evaluating.

(i) Additional information. Information resulting from the justice’s, judge’s or magistrate’s interview may be considered and included in the evaluation if deemed appropriate by the majority of the commission members. Summaries of this new information shall be sent to the judge no later than ten (10) days following the scheduled interview.

RULE 3. Role of Chief Justice of Supreme Court and Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals

(a) The state commission shall request a meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to be held no later than ten (10) days prior to receiving any sources of evaluation information listed in Rule 2 for any supreme court justices or court of appeals judges being evaluated. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals the opportunity to provide information and an overview of the appellate courts to the state commission. The meeting shall not constitute an evaluation of any justice’s or judge’s performance but shall be for informational purposes only, unless a justice or judge presently being evaluated was identified in the course of a prior judicial evaluation as having one or more particular weaknesses pursuant to Rule 3(c).

(b) After the state commission has completed the final version of the narrative profile and recommendation for a justice or judge, it shall provide the Chief Justice or the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals with the independent survey analysis report specified in Rule 5 for each justice or court of appeals judge evaluated.

(c) After the state commission has completed the final version of the narrative profile and recommendation for a justice or judge, if the state commission has identified one or more particular weaknesses of the justice or judge under review, it may forward recommendations for improvement to the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals together with the report specified in Rule 3(b). The state commission shall also provide a copy of the recommendations for improvement to the justice or judge who is the subject of the recommendations.

RULE 4. Role of Chief Judge of each judicial district

(a) The district commissions shall request a meeting with the Chief Judge of their judicial district to be held no later than ten (10) days prior to receiving any sources of evaluation information listed in Rule 2. The purpose of the meeting is to allow the Chief Judge the opportunity to provide to the commission members an overview of the judicial district including information such as caseloads, case types and the role of judges in the courts. The meeting shall not constitute an evaluation of any judge’s performance but shall be for informational purposes only, unless the judge presently being evaluated was identified in the course of a prior judicial evaluation as having one or more particular weaknesses pursuant to Rule 3(c).

(b) After the commission has completed the final version of the narrative profile and recommendation for a judge, it shall provide the Chief Judge of the commission’s judicial district with the independent survey analysis reports specified in Rule 5 prepared for each judge evaluated.

(c) After the commission has completed the final version of the narrative profile and recommendation for a judge, if the commission has identified one or more particular weaknesses of the judge or magistrate under review, it may forward recommendations for improvement to the Chief Judge together with the report specified in Rule 3(b). The commission shall also provide a copy of the recommendations for improvement to the judge or magistrate who is the subject of the recommendations.

RULE 5. Compilation of retention evaluation data

All completed surveys will be collected and statistically analyzed by the independent firm conducting the survey as authorized and approved by the state commission. Demographic information shall be separated from standard questions and comments to ensure the anonymity of the respondent. Commissions shall not receive the original questionnaires. All evaluation reports generated from the questionnaires shall be based on aggregate data. The information shall be supplied only as a composite report. Commissions shall not receive demographic information, unless the analysis of such information by the state commission or its agent proves to be statistically significant and affects evaluation of the overall professional performance of the justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated. Commissions will not receive questionnaire responses concerning any justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated if a statistically valid sample has not been collected, as determined by the state commission or its agent.

All written comments from the survey shall be reproduced verbatim, unless confidentiality cannot be assured. If confidentiality cannot be preserved, the commission may summarize the substance of the comment in order to provide it to the justice, judge or magistrate. All comments shall also be forwarded to the justice, judge or magistrate whom each comment concerns.

RULE 6. Disclosure of retention evaluation data to commission members and justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated

The final report prepared by the independent firm that conducts the evaluation survey is public but shall not be released until such time as the retention recommendation is made public; except that the comments included in the report are not public and shall not be released to the public. Any comments included with questionnaires and written information received by the commission are not public and will be made available only to commission members and the justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated. Comments are solicited in an effort to provide feedback to the justice, judge or magistrate and to assist the justice, judge or magistrate in a self-evaluation process. Commission members have access to comments in order to assist the commission in the interview of the justice, judge or magistrate. Commission members shall not reveal the contents of any comment concerning a justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated to anyone other than other commission members, and the justice, judge or magistrate during an interview.

Any justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated will be provided with the same information that is provided to commission members concerning that justice, judge or magistrate. The justice, judge or magistrate will receive the information no later than ten (10) days prior to any scheduled interview.

RULE 7. Information otherwise entitled to protection

Sensitive, personal information otherwise entitled to protection under the personnel files exemption of the Public Records Act, section 24-72-204(3)(a)(II), C.R.S., shall remain confidential.

Members of commissions and staff shall maintain confidentiality with regard to those materials and communications so designated as confidential.

All interviews or deliberations directly concerning the retention of any justice or judge are confidential and shall be closed to the public.

RULE 8. Disclosure of retention evaluation data to third parties

In addition to the disclosures authorized under Rule 6, upon a two-thirds majority vote of approval of the members of the state commission, the state and district commissions may release confidential information concerning a justice, judge or magistrate to:

(a) A newsgathering organization that initiates an inquiry about a matter that has become the subject of widespread concern and the release of information would benefit the justice, judge or magistrate and the public, and the justice, judge or magistrate signs a waiver for this purpose;

(b) A government agency or nominating commission that requests information concerning the appointment of a justice, judge or magistrate or former justice, judge or magistrate to another judicial position, and the justice, judge or magistrate signs a waiver for this purpose;

(c) An agency authorized to investigate the qualifications of persons for admission to practice law that requests information in order to evaluate a justice’s, judge’s or magistrate’s application for admission to the bar of another state, and the justice, judge or magistrate signs a waiver for this purpose;

(d) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, if such information is requested with respect to the appointment or assignment of a retired justice or judge to judicial duties, and the justice, judge or magistrate signs a waiver for this purpose;

(e) The Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Committee, if an allegation is made against a justice, judge or magistrate in the course of the evaluation process which, if true, would constitute a violation of the code of professional responsibility; or

(f) The Commission on Judicial Discipline, if an allegation is made against a justice, judge, or magistrate in the course of the evaluation process, which, if true, would constitute a violation of the code of judicial conduct, or which would constitute extra-judicial conduct that reflects adversely on the judiciary.

(g) Confidential information is the information listed in Rules 2 and 7 and includes current and past data collected for the evaluation of justices, judges and magistrates, except for sensitive, personal information subject to protection pursuant to section 24-72-204(3)(a)(II), C.R.S.

RULE 9. Interview

Commissions are required to schedule and conduct an interview with each justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated after the commission’s initial review of information is complete. Neither the commission, nor the justice, judge or magistrate may waive the initial interview process.

(a) Commissions must follow all guidelines provided by the state commission regarding the personal interview of justices, judges or magistrates being evaluated.

(b) The interview shall be conducted for such a period of time as is necessary to address the concerns of the commission members and the justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated. Prior to the interview, the justice, judge or magistrate may submit written information to the commission if he or she so desires.

RULE 10. Preparation of narrative profile

Within ten (10) days following an interview with a justice, judge or magistrate, and in any event no later than seventy-five (75) days prior to the last date available for the justice or judge to declare such justice’s or judge’s intent to stand for retention, the chair of the commission shall provide the justice, judge or magistrate a complete written draft of the narrative profile. The narrative profile shall conform to the format designed by the state commission. Preparation of the narrative profile may not be delegated to any court employee or judicial officer. It is recommended that all commission members be involved and participate in the drafting of the narrative profile. A draft of the narrative profile is not to be released to any person other than the justice, judge or magistrate whom it concerns.

RULE 11. Recommendation

In addition to the information published as a narrative profile, the commission shall make a recommendation regarding the retention of each justice or judge who has declared intent to stand for retention. The recommendation shall be "Retain," "Do Not Retain," or "No Opinion." A "No Opinion" shall be given only when the commission concludes that the results of information gathered are not sufficiently clear to make a firm recommendation, and such shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation. A commission member who did not participate in the judge’s scheduled interview may not vote on the commission’s recommendation for retention unless authorized to do so by a majority vote of the commission members who were present at such interview.

RULE 12. Narrative profile requirements

Narrative profiles shall be reports of three to four short paragraphs describing the justice, judge or magistrate, judicial assignment, number of years on the bench and the retention recommendation. Narrative profiles should include information specific to the work of the justice, judge or magistrate. Narrative profiles may contain information concerning the justice’s, judge’s or magistrate’s professional association activities, recent awards and honors, and volunteer or other community work. Narrative profiles of those judges who are not licensed to practice law in Colorado shall reflect such. Narrative profiles need not contain biographical data, such as undergraduate school information, educational degrees, or other historical information not directly related to the practice of law. Narrative profiles for justices or judges standing for retention may include a statement of the groups of respondents surveyed, the percentage of responses received from each group who recommend that a justice or judge be retained, the percentage of responses received from each group who have no opinion as to the retention of the justice or judge, and the percentage of responses received from each group who recommend that a justice or judge should not be retained. The commission may also include the following information in the narrative profiles: the justice’s or judge’s contribution to the community, strengths and weaknesses, which may include emphasizing areas of exemplary or distinguishing performance or describing areas of significantly poor performance, and any additional information that the commission believes may be of assistance to the public in making an informed voting decision on the justice or judge. District commissions shall prepare and provide the narrative profiles to the state commission no later than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the general election.

RULE 13. Response to narrative profile

(a) Any judge or magistrate being evaluated pursuant to section 13-5.5-106(3)(a), C.R.S., may respond to a draft of a narrative profile, in writing, within ten (10) days of receipt of the draft. Such a response must be directed to the chair of the commission.

(b) Any justice or judge being evaluated pursuant to section 13-5.5-106 (1)(a) or (2)(a), C.R.S., may respond to a draft of the narrative profile, in writing, within ten (10) days of receipt of the draft. If the responding justice or judge requests an additional interview with the commission, the justice or judge shall be given an opportunity to meet with the commission to address the contents of the narrative profile. Any additional interview shall be held within ten (10) days of the request. The commission may, after such a meeting with the justice or judge being evaluated, revise its evaluation. Additionally, any commission issuing a "Do Not Retain" recommendation shall, at the justice or judge’s request, include language in the narrative profile summarizing the justice’s or judge’s position. The justice or judge may, upon review of the summary, elect to withdraw the summary from inclusion in the narrative profile. The chair of the commission shall provide the justice or judge with any redraft of the narrative profile, in writing, within ten (10) days following the additional interview, or, absent an additional interview, within ten (10) days of the receipt of the justice’s or judge’s response.

RULE 14. Release of interim evaluations

The district commission shall release the narrative profile and any other relevant information developed pursuant to section 13-5.5-106(3), C.R.S., to the chief judge of the court and to the judge or magistrate no later than September 1 of the year in which the evaluation is performed. By September 1 of the year in which the evaluation is performed, the narrative profile and any other relevant information developed under this section shall also be available to the public, except that narrative profiles prepared pursuant to this section shall not be mailed to registered voters.

RULE 15. Release of the narrative profile and recommendation

When possible, the state commission shall release the narrative profile and the recommendation on retention prepared by the commissions to the public on the first day following the deadline for judges to declare their intent to stand for retention but no later than forty-five (45) days prior to the retention election.

RULE 16. Removal for cause

(a) Any member of any judicial performance commission may be removed for cause by the appointing authority pursuant to section 13-5.5-104, C.R.S. The state commission may recommend to the appointing authority that a member of a judicial performance commission be removed for cause. "Cause" means any malfeasance or nonfeasance in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of any judicial performance commission.

(b) A commission member shall disclose to the commission any professional or personal relationship with the judge that may affect an unbiased evaluation of that judge, including any litigation involving the judge and the commission member, the commission member’s family or commission member’s business and any past or current application to fill a judge vacancy in the judicial district. Failure to disclose such information may be cause for removal by the appointing authority or as recommended by the state commission.

RULE 17. Complaints

When a member of any district judicial performance commission or justice, judge or magistrate under evaluation believes that the judicial performance commission is operating in violation of these rules or the statute governing judicial performance commissions, such member, justice, judge, or magistrate shall notify the state commission. The state commission shall notify the chair of the particular district commission and request a written response regarding the complaint. Upon receipt of such a response, the state commission shall make an independent review and determine whether a violation of rule or statute has occurred. Findings of the state commission will be communicated to the district commission along with any instructions that are necessary to ensure that the district commission operates within these rules and the statute governing judicial performance commissions. In no event may the state commission overrule a recommendation regarding retention of any judge, but the state commission may provide a rebuttal recommendation to the district commission’s recommendation regarding retention of any judge when the district commission fails to comply with any instructions issued by the state commission pursuant to this Rule.

RULE 18. Participation by commission members in activities subsequent to dissemination of narrative profiles and recommendations on retention

A commission member or the commission may publicly discuss only the narrative profile, the retention recommendation, the numerical data, information from public hearings, and such information as has been made public under Rule 8.

RULE 19. Recusal

An attorney who is serving as a commission member for a district or state judicial performance commission shall not, during the term of such service, request that a justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated by the commission be recused from hearing a case in which the attorney appears as counsel of record, or request permission to withdraw from the case pending before a justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated, solely on the basis that the attorney is serving on such performance commission.

Any attorney who appears in a matter where opposing counsel of record serves as a member of the judicial performance commission which is evaluating the justice, judge or magistrate before whom the matter is set, may not request that the attorney be required to withdraw from the matter, or that the justice, judge or magistrate be recused from the matter on the basis that opposing counsel is serving on such performance commission.

A justice, judge or magistrate being evaluated by a judicial performance commission may not recuse himself or herself from a case in which an attorney member of a state or district judicial performance commission is counsel of record, nor should a justice, judge or magistrate grant a request to withdraw from a case by an attorney commission member, solely on the basis that the attorney is serving on the judicial performance commission conducting the evaluation.

A commission member shall disclose to the state’s and member’s commission, any professional or personal relationship with the justice, judge or magistrate that may affect an unbiased evaluation of that justice, judge or magistrate.

A member may abstain from voting on the recommendation of the commission.

RULE 20. Notice

(a) The district administrator shall cause to be published and posted at all times in a conspicuous location in each county courthouse of each judicial district affected by such commission, the names of members of the district judicial performance commission and a name, address, telephone number and
e-mail address (if available) as a public contact.

(b) The state commission shall cause to be published and posted at all times in a conspicuous location in the Colorado State Judicial Building the names of members of the state commission and a name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the state commission director for public contact.

 

RULE 21. Dissemination of information

The following shall apply to the dissemination of narrative profiles and recommendations on retention of justices or judges standing for retention in office:

(a) General Distribution. Commissions may prepare and may make available, narrative profiles at the county courthouse, local libraries, major grocery outlets, and other practical public outlets.

(b) Newspaper. Narrative profiles may be provided for publication in the local newspapers.

(c) Radio/T.V. Commissions may contract for public service announcement airtime on local radio/T.V. Public service announcements will direct the listener to the publication of retention recommendations. (Sample: 15 second PSA announcing that the results and recommendations concerning the election of judges standing for retention in the judicial district will be available in the [publication] on [date]. Narrative profiles are included in the ballot analysis distributed to all registered voters.)

RULE 22. Records

The program director shall create a set of guidelines in cooperation with the district administrators for the purpose of the collection and retention of a summary of each state and district commission review process, data collected and appropriate notes for each review cycle. The information shall be provided to the commissions in subsequent judicial performance evaluation review cycles.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, January 10, 2002, effective immediately.

 

Colorado Judicial Department

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Directives

Notice of Availability

A full set of the Chief Justice Directives may be purchased from the Colorado Judicial Department for $15, which includes copying, handling, and postage costs. Checks should be made payable to Colorado Judicial Department and should be mailed to: Court Services Division, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., #300, Denver, CO 80203. Individual Chief Justice Directives will be assessed a $5 charge, pursuant to Chief Justice Directive 96-01, concerning standard research fees. Chief Justice Directives also are available from the Colorado Supreme Court homepage at: www.courts.state. co.us/supct/cjdirectives.htm.

Publication in The Colorado Lawyer

Chief Justice Directives will be published on a space available basis in this "Court Business" section of The Colorado Lawyer. Some attachments may be omitted. To obtain a copy of attachments, contact: Court Services Division, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania, #300, Denver, CO 80203.

 



Chief Justice Directive 85-22, Amended

Supreme Court of Colorado Bar Association, Office of the Chief Justice

Rate of Interest on Judgments Which Are Appealed

 

Pursuant to the cited references, the Colorado Secretary of State has certified the following rates of interest on judgments that are appealed:

Effective Date Rate Date Certified

January 1, 1992 6% January 1, 1992

January 1, 1993 5% January 4, 1993

January 1, 1994 5% January 4, 1994

January 1, 1995 7% January 3, 1995

January 1, 1996 7% January 2, 1996

January 1, 1997 7% January 3, 1997

January 1, 1998 7% January 1, 1998

January 1, 1999 7% January 4, 1999

January 1, 2000 7% January 1, 2000

Effective Date Rate Date Certified

January 1, 2001 8% January 1, 2001

January 1, 2002 3% January 1, 2002

Approved by the Chief Justice January 8, 2002.

Mary J. Mullarkey

Chief Justice, Colorado Supreme Court

REFERENCES

Section 5-12-106(2), 2 C.R.S (2001) and 13-21-101(3), 5 C.R.S. (2001).

© 2002 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at http://www.cobar.org/tcl/disclaimer.cfm?year=2002.


Back