Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Find A Lawyer Directory

Calendars

TCL > January 2007 Issue > Court Business

The Colorado Lawyer
January 2007
Vol. 36, No. 1 [Page  107]

© 2007 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

Visit the related court’s website for complete text of rule changes or proposed rule changes issued by the court. Each court’s website includes corresponding forms, which are not printed in “Court Business,” and versions with highlights of revisions (deletions and additions).


Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee

Rule Change 2006(15)
Colorado Appellate Rules
Chapter 32
Amended and Adopted

Rule 3.4. Appeals from
Proceedings in Dependency or Neglect

(a) How Taken. Appeals from orders in dependency or neglect proceedings, as permitted by section 19-1-109 (2)(b) and (c), C.R.S., and including final orders of permanent legal custody entered pursuant to section 19-3-702, C.R.S, shall be in the manner and within the time prescribed by this rule.

(b) Time for Appeal.

(1) Through (2) [No Change.]

(3) The time in which to file a notice of appeal or a notice of cross-appeal and the corresponding designation of record will not be extended, except upon a showing of good cause pursuant to C.A.R. 2 and C.A.R. 26(b).

(c) [No Change.]

(d) Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal and Designation of Record (Form 1) must be prepared and signed by the appellant’s trial counsel or by the appellant, if pro se. The notice must identify the party or parties initiating the appeal, specify the order or part thereof from which the appeal is taken, and set forth the date the order was reduced to writing, dated, and signed by the trial court. The notice must be signed by the appellant, if an adult, unless counsel states in the notice of appeal that the appellant has specifically authorized the filing of the appeal. If counsel is unable to file a notice of appeal because the appellant is unavailable, counsel may file a Certificate of Diligent Search (Form 2) with the clerk of the trial court.

(e) Through (f) [No Change.]

(g) Petition on Appeal.

(1) Through (2) [No Change.]

(3) Unless the petition contains no more than 6,300 words, it shall not exceed twenty pages, excluding the attachments required by this Rule 3.4(g)(3)(G). The petition on appeal shall conform to the requirements in C.A.R. 32(a) and shall include:

(A) Through (D) [No Change.]

(E) A concise statement of the legal issues presented for appeal, including a statement of how the issues arose (general conclusory statements such as "the trial court’s ruling is not supported by the law or the evidence" are not acceptable);

(F) Supporting statutes, case law, or other legal authority for the issues raised, together with a statement of the legal proposition for which the legal authority stands and a concise explanation of its applicability to the issues presented on appeal; and

(G) [No Change.]

(h) Response to Petition on Appeal (Cross-Appeal).

(1) Through (2) [No Change.]

(3) Unless the response (cross-appeal) contains no more than 6,300 words, it shall not exceed twenty pages, excluding the attachments required by this Rule 3.4(h)(3)(E). The response (cross-appeal) shall conform to the requirements of C.A.R. 32(a) and shall include:

(A) Through (B) [No Change.]

(C) A concise response to the legal issues presented (general conclusory statements such as "the trial court’s ruling is supported by the law or the evidence" are not acceptable);

(D) Supporting statutes, case law, or other legal authority in support of the response, together with a statement of the legal proposition for which the legal authority stands and a concise explanation of its applicability to the issues presented on appeal; and

(E) [No Change.]

Rule 4. Appeal as of Right—When Taken

(a) Appeals in Civil Cases (Other than Appeals or Appellate Review Within C.A.R. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4). Except as provided in Rule 4(e), in a civil case in which an appeal is permitted by law as of right from a trial court to the appellate court, the notice of appeal required by C.A.R. 3 shall be filed with the appellate court with an advisory copy served on the clerk of the trial court within forty-five days of the date of the entry of the judgment, decree, or order from which the party appeals. In appeals from district court review of agency actions, such notice of appeal shall be in addition to the statutory forty-five-day notice of intent to seek appellate review filed with the district court required by C.R.S. § 24-4-106 (9). If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the date on which the first notice of appeal is filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this section (a), whichever period last expires.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, November 9, 2006, effective immediately.

BY THE COURT:

Nancy E. Rice, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court


Rule Change 2006(16)
Colorado Appellate Rules
Appendix to Chapter 32, Forms
Special Forms Index
Amended and Adopted

Form 1. JDF 545 Notice of Appeal
(Cross-Appeal) and Designation of Record

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, November 9, 2006, effective immediately.

BY THE COURT:

Nancy E. Rice, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court


Rule Change 2006(17)
Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline
Chapter 24, Part A. General Provisions
Amended and Adopted

Rule 4. Jurisdiction and Powers

(a) Jurisdiction. The commission shall have jurisdiction over the conduct of any judge of a court of record serving on a full-time, part-time or retired basis, except for municipal judges and county judges of the City and County of Denver. Judicial conduct that appears to be in violation of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct but is not otherwise within the commission’s jurisdiction shall be referred to the Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel. The Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel shall also have jurisdiction over the conduct of a lawyer that occurred prior to the time the lawyer held juridical office, as well as the conduct of a lawyer who is no longer a judge that occurred during the time the lawyer held judicial office, with reference to alleged violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, if the commission did not investigate and resolve the matter during the judge’s tenure in office.

(b) through (e) [No Change.]

Rule 6. Confidentiality and Privilege

(a) and (b) [No Change.]

(c) Disclosures. The commission may release confidential information concerning a judge when:

(1) through (4) [No Change.]

(5) The commission notifies the Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel of a complaint against a judge involving conduct that may violate the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

(6) [No Change.]

(d) and (e) [No Change.]

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, November 9, 2006, effective immediately.

BY THE COURT:

Michael L. Bender, Justice
Nathan B. Coats, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court


Rule Change 2006(18)
Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure
Chapter 29, VI. Trial
Amended and Adopted

Rule 26. Evidence

In all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, unless otherwise provided by law.

Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, November 9, 2006, effective January 1, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

Alex J. Martinez, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court

________________________________________________________

Colorado Judicial Department
Colorado Supreme Court
Judicial Ethics Advisory Board Opinions

Colorado Supreme Court
Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (C.J.E.A.B.)
C.J.E.A.B. Advisory Opinion 2006–08
(Finalized and Effective November 16, 2006)

ISSUE PRESENTED

The requesting judge, who serves part-time on the county Bench, has been asked to participate on a blue ribbon panel of public and private leaders, including a bipartisan coalition of mayors and other dignitaries, charged with "reducing the state’s contribution and vulnerability to a changed climate" by developing a set of recommendations and policy proposals addressing how Colorado can mitigate and adapt to climate change. The panel’s recommendations will be presented to Colorado’s next governor, the state legislature, local governments, water districts, and other governmental bodies. Because the project is spearheaded by an organization designated as charitable under IRS 501(c)(3) regulations, the requesting judge suggests that his involvement with the group may be permitted by Canon 5(B).

However, he questions whether his participation on the panel is forbidden by Canon 5(G). He points out that the panel on which he would serve is not a "government commission" within the meaning of that Canon, because the appointing authority is a private charitable organization, but he observes that his participation on the panel could be problematic under Canon 5(G), because the project is unrelated to the law, legal system, or administration of justice, and instead involves public policy issues that could result in executive or legislative agendas. Thus, he asks whether he may accept the appointment under Canon 5(B) or whether he should weigh the invitation to participate through the lens of Canon 5(G) and the Board’s ethics advisory opinion in 2005–04.

CONCLUSIONS

The judge should not accept the appointment. The judge’s work on the panel would involve consulting with or providing recommendations to the legislative and executive branches on climate control issues, which are unconnected with the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary, and thus are prohibited under Canon 4. In addition, the blue ribbon panel’s focus on influencing legislation constitutes prohibited political activity within the meaning of Canon 7.

APPLICABLE CANONS OF THE COLORADO CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 4 encourages a judge to engage in quasi-judicial activities to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Canon 4B specifies that a judge may consult with, or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or an official thereof, on matters concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government.

Canon 5 encourages judges to participate in extra-judicial activities. Canon 5B governs a judge’s involvement in civic and charitable activities and provides that a judge is encouraged to participate in such activities that do not reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, social, or civic organization if the organization is not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, and provided that the organization is not engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or regularly engage in adversary proceedings in any court.

Canon 5G addresses extra-judicial appointments and provides that a judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

Canon 7 directs that a judge should refrain from political activity inappropriate to his or her judicial office. The Canon enumerates several categories of political activity from which the judge should refrain and also states that a judge shall not "engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government."

DISCUSSION

In the Board’s view, the judge’s request falls within the ambit of Canons 4 and 7 rather than Canon 5. Canon 4B provides that a judge may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body on matters concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government. This provision suggests that a judge should not consult with the legislature or governor on matters other than those that concern the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government. Thus, under this provision, as the Federal Committee on Codes of Conduct noted, a judge may consult with a legislative body only when "the subject matter reasonably may be considered to merit the attention and comment of a judge as a judge, and not merely as an individual." See Fed. Op. 50. Here, if the requesting judge were to become a member of the blue ribbon panel on climate change, he would be making recommendations to a legislative body—which is similar to, or the same as, consulting with the body—on questions about the climate, which has nothing to do with the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government.

In addition, as noted above, Canon 7 prohibits judges from engaging in specified types of political conduct and includes a catch-all provision directing judges not to "engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government." The Canon does not define the term "political activity."

The Board recently considered the scope and meaning of Canon 7 in opinion 2006–07. See http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/committees/judicialethicsadvisoryboard/opinion2006-07.pdf. In that opinion, the Board concluded that the requesting judge could make a monetary contribution to a group advocating for or against a proposed Amendment that would impose term limits on appellate judges so long as the donee group was not a partisan "political organization." The Board further concluded that the judge could speak to civic groups and write editorials regarding the Amendment because such activity implicates the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government and thus was expressly permitted under Canons 7 and 4. Thus, our analysis of Canon 7 in that opinion, while providing a useful background for the instant inquiry, is inapposite here because, in the prior opinion, the judge wished to engage in political activity concerning a measure involving the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, which is political activity expressly permitted under Canon 7. Here, by contrast, the blue ribbon panel’s efforts to develop a climate control agenda, while certainly an issue of interest to many, is activity unrelated to these purposes.

Nevertheless, Canon 7 is implicated here because the blue ribbon panel’s mandate of developing a climate control agenda for presentation to the governor and legislature raises the question of whether the judge would be engaging in proscribed "political activity" within the meaning of the Canon. As noted above, Canon 7 does not provide a definition of the term, and reference to the Canons as a whole and statutes does not aid in understanding the meaning of the term. Courts and other advisory boards construing the phrase have long grappled with how to identify what sort of conduct falls within the prohibition of "political activity," reaching a variety of disparate conclusions. These conclusions range from a broad view that any "issue activity" is "political activity," In re Randolph, 502 A.2d 533, 539 (N.J. 1986), to a narrower view holding that only partisan political activity qualifies as "political activity" under the Canons. In re Staples, 719 P.2d 558, 561 (Wash. 1986). The intermediate view recognizes that the matter should be approached on a case-by-case basis. In re Maze, 85 S.W.2d 599, 601 & n.1 (Ky. 2002). Indeed, even the same court has been inconsistent in how it defines the term "political activity," concluding in Staples that the Canon defining political activity "applies only to partisan political activities," 719 P.2d at 561 (emphasis in original), but later stating in Sanders that "[t]he prohibition against engaging in other political activity cannot mean simply avoiding issues that divide neatly along traditional party lines." In re Sanders, 955 P.2d 369, 375 (Wash. 1998). As the Sanders court pointed out, however, the narrow approach to identifying conduct that is "political activity" is unhelpful because it fails to take into account the goals and concerns animating other Canons, and the broad approach, which would prevent a judge from speaking on any issues that has proponents on both sides, would essentially gag judges. See In re Sanders, supra, 955 P.2d at 375.

We decline to adopt either categorical approach to defining "political activity" for the reasons articulated by the Sanders court. We agree with the Kentucky Supreme Court’s analysis that balancing the various factors used to assess whether activity is political "requires a case by case determination, a process in which the Canons of Judicial Ethics act as guideposts, not walls impervious to our better judgment and prudence." In re Maze, supra, 85 S.W.3d at 600. Like the Maze court, we refrain from creating a hard line rule as to what makes one activity political while another is educational or charitable, and instead focus on the purpose and agenda as the two most significant factors in determining whether an activity is political within the meaning of the Canon. See id. at n.1.

In applying this framework to the request before us, we note that the purpose and agenda of the blue ribbon panel on climate control is to prepare a legislative agenda for action to be taken to address climate change issues. Here, the ultimate result of the judge’s participation on the panel would be recommended legislation to be presented to the governor, the legislature, water districts, and local government bodies. The panel’s purpose and agenda of seeking to influence legislation clearly makes its activities "political" within the meaning of Canon 7. Because this political activity is unconnected with measures to improve the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, or the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, it is not political activity excepted from the general prohibition under Canon 7A(1)(d). In addition, the judge’s proposed conduct raises separation of powers and appearance of impropriety concerns in that a member of the judiciary would be making legislative recommendations to the other two co-equal branches of government on matters completely unconnected with his position and experience as a judge. Thus, we conclude that the judge should not serve on the panel. This conclusion is consistent with that of our sister jurisdictions. See Wis. Op. 00-5 (concluding that a judge could not serve as president of a civic, non-profit organization whose mission is to advocate social goals though legislative action and litigation).

In concluding that the judge’s participation on this particular panel is not permitted under Canons 4 and 7, we note that Canon 5G does not apply because the panel on which the judge has been asked to participate is being convened by a private organization, not a governmental body. See also the Commentary to Canon 5G. Accordingly, our analysis is not guided by our previous opinion  in  2005-04, http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/committees/judicialethicsadvisoryboard/opinion2005-04.pdf, which addressed a judge’s participation on a municipal commission devoted to crime control and prevention.

Similarly, although Canon 5B is relevant to our assessment of the judge’s request, it is not dispositive. As noted above, Canon 5B encourages judges to participate in civic, charitable, educational, and similar organizations, provided that such participation does not adversely reflect upon the judge’s impartiality, and provided that the organization does not engage in adversary proceedings likely to bring it before the requesting judge or any other court. In this case, the appointing organization has been designated as a 501(c)(3) charitable entity by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, any litigation resulting from the panel’s work would not come before the requesting judge, who serves in a part-time capacity as a county judge in a rural district. Both of these factors suggest, at first blush, that the judge’s participation on the panel would be permissible under Canon 5B. However, any involvement by a judge in efforts to influence legislation, as the blue ribbon panel in question here would seek to do, triggers examination of the proposed conduct under other applicable provisions of the Canons. As explained above, efforts by a judge to influence legislation on matters unrelated to the law, even on behalf of a charitable organization, are not permitted under Canons 4 and 7. Thus, although the organization convening the blue ribbon panel may indeed be charitable within the meaning of both Canon 5B and the Internal Revenue Code, its focus on influencing a legislative agenda on climate change make the judge’s participation inappropriate under the Canons.

FINALIZED AND EFFECTIVE this 16th day of November 2006, by the Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board.

Barbara Crowfoot (citizen member)
Hon. Martin Foster Egelhoff (judge member)
Daniel S. Hoffman, Esq. (attorney member)
Hon. Morris W. Sandstead, Jr. (judge member)
Hon. Pattie P. Swift (judge member/board chair)
Prof. Emeritus James E. Wallace (law professor member)
Hon. John R. Webb (judge member)
Eileen M. Kiernan-Johnson, Esq. (staff to the board)

________________________________________________________

Colorado Judicial Department
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Directives

Chief Justice Directive 06-03
Concerning Language Interpreters and Access to the Courts by
Persons with Limited English Proficiency
Dated November 14, 2006

This directive is created to establish policies regarding the proper utilization and payment of foreign language interpreters provided and arranged for by the courts, and to offer guidelines for access to the courts by persons with limited English proficiency.

I. DEFINITIONS

I. A. Classified Staff Language Interpreter—An employee whose employment is governed by the Colorado Judicial System Personnel Rules and whose job classification falls within the classification and compensation plan.

I. B. Independent Contract Language Interpreter—A language interpreter who is an independent contractor pursuant to contract or who is an independent contractor as defined by IRS Revenue ruling 87-41.

I. C. Temporary or Periodic Contract Employee Language Interpreter—A language interpreter who is under temporary or periodic contract. Temporary contracts are used for those assignments where an interpreter is required for a special short-term project of limited duration (six months or less). Periodic contracts are used for those assignments where an interpreter is required for an unlimited duration but where employment is sporadic and occurs on an as-needed basis.

I. D. Professionally Certified Interpreter—A language interpreter who meets minimum professional competency standards, has achieved a passing score on an oral certification exam for interpreters recognized by the Colorado Judicial Department, and is listed on the active professionally certified interpreter roster maintained by the Court Interpreter Program Administrator (hereinafter CIPA) and posted on the Colorado Judicial website.

I. E. Professionally Qualified Interpreter—A language interpreter who has not achieved certification but has met training and minimum oral certification exam score requirements to be considered for court interpreting assignments when a professionally certified interpreter is not available. Professionally qualified interpreters are listed on the active professionally qualified interpreter roster maintained by the CIPA and posted on the Colorado Judicial website.

I. F. Conditionally Approved Interpreter—A language interpreter who works in a language other than Spanish and has not achieved certification or professionally qualified status but has met minimum requirements to be considered for court interpreting assignments when a professionally certified or professionally qualified interpreter is not available. Conditionally approved interpreters are listed on the roster of interpreters working in languages other than Spanish, maintained by the CIPA and posted on the Colorado Judicial website.

II. APPOINTMENT OF LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

II. A. The court shall provide and pay for interpretation in court proceedings relating to the following case types:

1. Felony, Misdemeanor, and Misdemeanor Traffic.
2. Juvenile Delinquency and Truancy.
3. Protection Orders involving domestic abuse.
4. Dependency and Neglect.
5. Paternity and Support when covered under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.
6. Relinquishment.
7. Mental Health.

II. B. The court may appoint and pay for an interpreter for any party to a court case where a determination of indigency has been made in accordance with the fiscal standards established by the Supreme Court. See Chief Justice Directive 98-01 and JDF 205.

II. C. For those cases listed in paragraphs II.A. and II.B., the court shall pay for language interpretation services in the following circumstances:

1. During court proceedings when a defendant, one of the parties, a victim, a witness, or the parent and/or legal guardian of a minor charged as a juvenile is a non-English speaker.

2. To facilitate communication outside the judge’s presence to allow a court proceeding to continue as scheduled, including pre-trial conferences between defendants and district attorneys in order to relay a plea offer immediately prior to a court appearance.

3. For the purpose of facilitating communication between client and Court Appointed Counsel as appropriate under Chief Justice Directive 04-04.

4. During contempt proceedings when loss of liberty is a possible consequence.

5. In the development of payment plans and the completion of pre-sentence investigations, unless there is bilingual staff available to cover those functions.

6. During mental health evaluations performed for the purpose of aiding the court in making a determination concerning competency or sanity.

II. D. The court shall not arrange, provide or pay for language interpretation to facilitate communication with attorneys, prosecutors, or other parties related to a case involving individuals with limited English proficiency for the purpose of gathering background information, investigation, trial preparation, client representation at a future proceeding, or any other purpose that falls outside the immediate court proceedings, except as delineated in Section II.C. Prosecutors and clients’ attorneys are expected to provide and pay for language interpretation that they deem necessary for case preparation and general communication with parties outside court proceedings.

II. E. For cases other than those listed in paragraphs II.A. through II.C. above, the parties may provide and arrange for their own interpretation services. Minors, family members, parties to the case, or parties who may have a conflict of interest should not be used as language interpreters. Failure by the parties to provide and arrange for language interpretation services in these cases shall not require a continuance in a case.

III. QUALIFICATIONS OF LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

III. A. All language interpreters provided by the courts shall undergo a background investigation and sign an oath to abide by the Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters. Interpreters listed on active rosters maintained by the CIPA shall sign an acknowledgment regarding their obligations under CJD 05-05, the Continuing Education and Professional Practice Policy for Interpreters.

III. B. In the following circumstances, professionally certified language interpreters are mandatory:

1. Courts located in areas where 5 or more professionally certified interpreters in one language reside within a 25 mile radius of the courthouse shall use professionally certified language interpreters in all felony case proceedings requiring interpretation in that language.

2. Courts located in areas where fewer than 5 professionally certified interpreters in one language reside within a 25 mile radius of the courthouse shall at a minimum provide professionally certified interpreters during trials in class 1 felony cases, when professionally certified interpreters in that language reside in Colorado. When the language needed is Spanish, all proceedings in class 1 felony cases shall be covered by professionally certified interpreters.

III. C. To ensure that proceedings are interpreted as accurately as possible, courts are strongly encouraged to use professionally certified language interpreters during all court proceedings requiring a language interpreter.

III. D. When a professionally certified interpreter is not available, interpreters listed on the roster of active professionally qualified interpreters maintained by the CIPA shall be given preference.

III. E. If no professionally certified or professionally qualified language interpreter is available, language interpreters who are conditionally approved or have attended the Court Interpreter Orientation shall be given preference.

III. F. When an interpreter is not listed on an active interpreter roster maintained by the CIPA, the court shall, prior to initiating a proceeding, conduct a voir dire inquiry of the language interpreter to determine the interpreter’s credentials.

IV. ASSIGNMENT OF MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE INTEPRETER

IV. A. The court shall arrange, provide, and pay for two interpreters to be continuously present during the following types of hearings to prevent interpreter fatigue and the concomitant loss of accuracy in interpretation:

1. Hearings scheduled to last 2 hours or longer.

2. Hearings with multiple limited English proficient defendants requiring interpretation when attorney/client consultation during a hearing is paramount (e.g., witness testimony, motions).

3. Hearings in which both a defendant and a witness require interpretation.

4. Hearings in which multiple languages are involved.

IV. B. The following guidelines and limitations apply to the utilization of more than one interpreter:

1. The use of electronic simultaneous interpreting equipment is encouraged as best practice in all cases, particularly in proceedings exceeding two hours with multiple limited English proficient defendants, or in proceedings where both the defendant and victim require interpretation.

2. In proceedings with multiple limited English proficient defendants requiring interpretation in one language, the interpreter not actively involved in providing simultaneous interpretation shall be used to facilitate attorney-client communication when needed.

3. If language interpretation is required for witness testimony in a proceeding with multiple limited English proficient defendants, a third interpreter may be provided by the court for that purpose.

4. The use of simultaneous equipment is highly encouraged to allow victims to be present at interpreted proceedings without the need for an additional interpreter.

5. Interpreters are bound by an oath of confidentiality and impartiality, and serve as officers of the court; therefore, the use of one interpreter by more than one defendant in a case is permitted.

6. Similarly, the court is not obligated to appoint a different language interpreter when an interpreter has previously interpreted during a court proceeding for another party in a case.

7. Any party may provide and arrange for interpretation services to facilitate attorney-client communication if interpretation services exceeding those provided by the court are desired.

V. TELEPHONIC INTERPRETATION

Telephonic interpretation may be utilized to facilitate access to the courts by persons with limited English proficiency. In the case of legal proceedings requiring Spanish interpreter services, telephonic interpreting should be limited to hearings lasting 45 minutes or less and interpreters holding a court certification credential should be requested.

VI. ACCESS TO SERVICES

Based on current policy, court interpreting services are only provided in the cases detailed under paragraphs II.A. through II.C. Current policy reflects the Court’s commitment to consistency and fairness in the provision of interpreting services for LEP persons statewide, the Court’s recognition of the serious nature and possible consequences of court proceedings for individuals who come in contact with the courts, and the need to allocate limited financial resources most effectively. For more information on the Colorado Judicial Department’s efforts to provide linguistic access to LEP individuals in the court system, please refer to the Colorado Court Interpreter Program website, http://www.courts.state.co.us/chs/hr/interpreters/courtinterpreterpage.htm.

VI. A. The District Administrator or designee shall manage the provision of linguistic access to the courts for LEP individuals in a district, including the establishment of procedures for scheduling and coordinating language interpreter services for all court proceedings, and the facilitation of access to all other services provided by the court as described in this CJD for persons with limited English proficiency.

VI. B. The Chief Probation Officer or designee shall manage the provision of linguistic access to probation supervision for LEP individuals in each judicial district.

VI. C. To facilitate the use of the most qualified language interpreter available, the Court Interpreter Program Administrator of the State Court Administrator’s Office shall administer the training and testing of language interpreters and post rosters on the judicial website of active status interpreters who are professionally certified, professionally qualified and/or conditionally approved as defined in this CJD.

VI. D. To assist all judicial districts in their task of providing access to the courts and probation supervision to persons with limited English proficiency, the CIPA shall post on the judicial website professional translations of forms frequently used by the courts and probation services as they become available.

VI. E. To facilitate access to the courts and probation supervision by persons with limited English proficiency, signs shall be posted to advise LEP individuals regarding availability of interpreter services in those languages most commonly requiring interpretation.

VI. F. To facilitate access to the courts by persons with limited English proficiency, telephonic interpretation services may be used.

VII. Appendix A

Policies regarding allocation of interpreters, professional requirements of staff interpreters, and payment of interpreters are contained in Appendix A of this directive. Appendix A may be amended from time to time as necessary. Authority to amend Appendix A of this directive is delegated to the State Court Administrator. Amendments to Appendix A may be made without requiring the re-issuance of this CJD.

Done at Denver, Colorado this 14th day of November 2006.

BY THE COURT:

Mary J. Mullarkey, Chief Justice
Colorado Supreme Court

APPENDIX A

A. I. ALLOCATION OF STAFF INTERPRETERS

District Administrators may hire classified staff interpreters at their discretion and within the district’s budget. Additional contract interpreting staff may be hired on an as-needed basis, through temporary contracts, periodic employment contracts, or as independent contractors.

A. II. PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STAFF INTERPRETERS

It is recommended that all staff court interpreters hired into classified positions be professionally certified. However, availability and other factors may affect a district’s ability to hire only professionally certified interpreters. Therefore, all non-certified classified staff court interpreters shall become professionally certified within two years of the effective date of this CJD or within two years of the interpreter’s date of employment, whichever comes later. Non-certified classified staff interpreters hired after the effective date of this CJD shall at a minimum have attended the court interpreter orientation, and preferably be listed on the roster of professionally qualified interpreters posted on the Court Interpreter Program website.

A classified staff court interpreter who fails to meet certification requirements within the time limits provided, but has reached professionally qualified roster status, is an exemplary court interpreter, and has made significant efforts to become professionally certified may petition the State Court Administrator for extraordinary relief.

Based upon available funding, classified staff court interpreters who gain federal or state certification shall be designated a Court Interpreter II and will receive the corresponding additional compensation as established by the Colorado Judicial Department compensation plan.

A. III. PAYMENT OF INTERPRETERS AND OTHER LEP-RELATED SERVICES

A.III.A. Compensation Rate for Non-Classified Spanish Interpreters. The maximum compensation for a non-certified Spanish language interpreter working as an independent contractor or temporary/periodic contract employee shall be $25/hour. The maximum compensation for a professionally certified Spanish language interpreter working as an independent contractor or temporary/periodic contract employee shall be $30/hour. In extraordinary circumstances, the District Administrator or designee may appoint a professionally certified independent contract Spanish language interpreter at an hourly rate in excess of those established in this directive.

A.III.B. Compensation Rate for Non-Classified Interpreters working in languages other than Spanish. The maximum compensation for an interpreter working as an independent contractor or temporary/periodic contract employee in a language other than Spanish shall depend on the interpreter’s certification status and language availability in the judicial district. Every effort shall be made to coordinate the rate of pay for interpreters working in languages other than Spanish in the various judicial districts.

A.III.C. Minimum Shift Assignments. Interpreters working as independent contractors or temporary/ periodic contract employees shall be contracted to work for a set period of time, which shall not be less than two consecutive hours on any given day, irrespective of the number of cases requiring language interpretation. When interpreting assignments require that the interpreter work beyond the time for which he or she was contracted, interpreters shall be paid in 15-minute increments. Judicial districts are encouraged to maximize efficiencies in the utilization of language interpreter services in order to keep language interpreter wait time to a minimum.

A.III.D. Payment for Travel Time. At the discretion of the administrative authority, an interpreter may be paid mileage and/or half the hourly interpreter rate for travel time. In extraordinary circumstances, the interpreter may be paid the full hourly interpreter rate when round trip travel exceeds 150 miles.

A.III.E. Overnight Travel. In the case of trials or hearings exceeding one day, language interpreters may be compensated for food and lodging at the standard rate established by the Colorado Judicial Department Fiscal procedures when round-trip travel of 120 miles or greater is required to secure a professionally certified Spanish language interpreter, or the best-qualified interpreter in the case of languages other than Spanish. To receive reimbursement for food or lodging expenses, the language interpreter must receive authorization from the court for the expenses in advance of the actual expenditure. Reimbursement of allowed food and lodging expenses through the District Administrator will be made only if itemized receipts are provided and expenses are within the allowable ranges as defined in the Colorado Judicial Department Fiscal Procedures.

A.III.F. Cancellation Policy. Contract interpreters whose assignment is cancelled within seventy-two (72) hours of the assignment start time shall be paid for the scheduled time up to a maximum of sixteen (16) hours unless otherwise assigned by the Colorado Judicial Department. If the assignment is cancelled with more than a seventy-two (72) hour notice, the scheduling District is under no obligation to pay the cancellation fee.


Repeal of Chief Justice Directive 90-01
Concerning Court Appointment and Compensation of Language Interpreters
Dated November 14, 2006

I hereby repeal Chief Justice Directive 90-01, dated August 16, 2001, concerning Court Appointment and Compensation of Language Interpreters, and declare it to be no longer in force or effect. Chief Justice Directive 06-03, signed November 14, 2006, addresses the subject matter of 90-01, as well as adopting additional policies relating to Limited English Proficiency.

Done at Denver, Colorado this 14th day of November 2006.

BY THE COURT:

Mary J. Mullarkey, Chief Justice
Colorado Supreme Court

© 2007 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=2007.


Back