Rule 6. Time
Rule 16. Case Management and Trial Management
Rule 56. Summary Judgment and Rulings on Questions of Law
Rule 65. Injunction
Rule 105.1. Spurious Lien or Document
Rule 120. Orders Authorizing Sales Under Powers
Rule 121. Local Rules—Statewide Practice Standards
1. Briefs; When Required; Time For Serving and Filing—Length
Rule 251.8. Immediate Suspension
Nancy E. Rice, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court
Rule 6. Time
(b) through (d) [No Change].
(e) Additional Time After Service Under C.R.C.P. 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D). Unless otherwise specifically ordered, whenever a party must or may act within a prescribed period after service is made under C.R.C.P. 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D), three calendar days shall be added after the prescribed period would expire under the rule that defines the length of the prescribed period.
COMMITTEE COMMENT to Rule 6(e).
The three extra days for service under rule 5(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) are calendar days and do not exclude weekends and holidays. Of course, if the newly-calculated date, after adding the three additional days under Rule 6(e) following service other than personal service, ends on a weekend or holiday, the deadline will be extended to the next business day.
When a deadline for action calculated under Rule 6(a) lands on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the three days under Rule 6(e) are to be added from that day, not from the first business day following the originally-determined date. Thus, for example, if a motion is e-filed on a Friday so that the 15-day deadline for filing an answer brief falls on a Saturday, the addition of the three days for service by e-filing would extend the actual filing deadline to the following Tuesday (Saturday deadline, plus Sunday, Monday and Tuesday).
Rule 16. Case Management and Trial Management
(a) through (b) [No Change].
(c) Modified Case Management Order. Any of the provisions of section (b) of this Rule may be modified by the entry of a Modified Case Management Order pursuant to this section and section (d) of this Rule. If a trial is set to commence less than 180 days after the at-issue date as defined in C.R.C.P. 16(b)(1), and if a timely request for a modified case management order is made by any party, the case management order shall be modified to allow the parties an appropriate amount of time to meet case management deadlines, including discovery, expert disclosures, and the filing of summary judgment motions. The amounts of time allowed shall be within the discretion of the court on a case-by-case basis.
(1) through (5) [No Change].
(g) [No Change].
Rule 56. Summary Judgment and Rulings on Questions of Law
(a) For Claimant. A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory judgment may, after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action or after filing of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the claiming party’s favor upon all or any part thereof.
(b) [No Change].
(c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than 85 days prior to trial. A cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than 70 days prior to trial. The motion may be determined without oral argument. The opposing party may file and serve opposing affidavits within the time allowed for the responsive brief, unless the court orders some lesser or greater time. The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. A summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.
(d) through (h) [No Change].
Rule 65. Injunction
(a) [No Change].
(b) Temporary Restraining Order; Notice; Hearing; Duration. A temporary retraining order may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if: (1) It clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint or by testimony that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing or on the record the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting his claim that notice should not be required. Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance; shall be filed forthwith in the clerk’s office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice; and shall expire by its terms within such time after entry not to exceed ten calendar days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed, the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. In case a temporary restraining order is granted without notice, the motion for a preliminary injunction shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and take precedence of all matters except older matters of the same character; and when the motion comes on for hearing the party who obtained the temporary restraining order shall proceed with the application for a preliminary injunction and, if he dos not do so, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order. On two days’ notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order without notice or on such shorter notice to that party as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may appear and move its dissolution or modification and in that event the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.
(c) through (i) [No Change].
Rule 105.1. Spurious Lien or Document
(a) [No Change].
(b) Notice; Service. The petitioner shall issue a notice to respondent setting forth the time and place for the hearing on the show cause order, which hearing shall be set not less than ten calendar days nor more than twenty days from service of the show cause order, and shall advise respondent of the right to file and serve a response as provided in section (c), including a reference to the last day for filing a response and the addresses at which such response must be filed and served. The notice shall contain the return address of the petitioner or the petitioner’s attorney. The notice and a copy of the petition and order to show cause shall be served by the petitioner on the respondent not less than ten days prior to the date set for the hearing, by (1) mailing a true copy thereof by first class mail to each respondent at the address or addresses stated in the lien or document and (2) filing a copy with the clerk of the district court and delivering a second copy to the clerk of the district court for posting in the clerk’s office, which shall be evidenced by the certificate of the petitioner or petitioner’s agent or attorney. Alternatively, the petitioner may serve the petition, notice, and show cause order upon each respondent in accordance with Rule 4, or, in the event the claim is brought as a counterclaim or cross-claim in a pending action in which the parties have appeared, in accordance with Rule 5.
Rule Change 2007(11)
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure
Appendix to Chapters 1 to 17A
Forms (See Rule 84.)
Amended and Adopted
(Some forms in this Appendix are available from the Colorado courts Web page
FORM 26. WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT
FORM 29. WRIT OF GARNISHMENT WITH NOTICE OF EXEMPTION AND PENDING LEVY
FORM 31. WRIT OF GARNISHMENT FOR SUPPORT
FORM 32. WRIT OF GARNISHMENT – JUDGMENT DEBTOR OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSON
FORM 33. WRIT OF GARNISHMENT IN AID OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.
FORM 34. NOTICE OF LEVY
Amended and Adopted by the Court, En Banc, June 28, 2007, effective July 1, 2007.
By the Court:
Nancy E. Rice, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court
Rule Change 2007(12)
Rules Governing the Commissions on Judicial Performance
Repealed and Readopted
The State Commission on Judicial Performance with the approval of the Supreme Court Repeals and Readopts the following rules pursuant to section 13-5.5-103(1)(k), C.R.S., effective January 1, 2008.
ANALYSIS BY RULE
Rule 1. Appointments
Rule 2. Officers
Rule 3. Procedures
Rule 4. Meetings
Rule 5. Executive Sessions
Rule 6. Recusal
Rule 7. Staff
Rule 8. Chief Justice or Chief Judge
Rule 9. Training
Rule 10. Trial Judge and Magistrate Evaluations
Rule 11. Appellate Judge and Justice Evaluations
Rule 12. Recommendations
Rule 13. Narratives
Rule 14. Confidentiality
Rule 15. Records
Rule 16. Complaints
Rule 1. Appointments.
(a) Commissioners shall be appointed to four-year terms, expiring on November 30 in even-numbered years in the case of the state commission, and on November 30 in odd-numbered years in the case of district commissions. A commissioner who resigns or moves out of the district or state shall advise the chair of the commission, the appointing authority, and the state commission. The chair of a commission shall advise the appointing authority and the state commission of any vacancy, and the date of the vacancy, if known. The director of the state commission shall immediately, in writing, advise the appropriate appointing authority of the vacancy, whether the vacancy must be filled with an attorney or a non-attorney, and that if no appointment is made within forty-five days of the vacancy, the state commission shall make the appointment.
(b) The director of the state commission shall cause to be published and posted at all times on the commission’s web site the names of the state and district commissioners and the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the state commission director and each district administrator.
(c) The state commission may recommend to the appointing authority that a member of any commission be removed for cause pursuant to section 13-5.5-104, C.R.S. "Cause" means any malfeasance or nonfeasance in carrying out the commissioner’s official duties and responsibilities, including improper disclosure of confidential information, failure to disclose any basis for recusal or to recuse when appropriate, and failure to participate in three consecutive meetings.
Rule 2. Officers.
Commissions shall elect a chair and a vice-chair, one of whom should be an attorney, and one of whom should not be an attorney, to serve two-year terms. The terms of the chair and vice-chair of the state commission shall expire on November 30 of each even-numbered year. The terms of the chairs and vice-chairs of the respective district commissions shall expire on November 30 of each odd-numbered year.
Rule 3. Procedures.
A majority of the total number of appointed members of a commission shall constitute a quorum. The procedures adopted by the state commission shall be used for the conduct of all meetings, evaluations, and other business, except as otherwise provided by these rules or statute.
Rule 4. Meetings.
(a) Although judicial performance commissions are not subject to the Colorado open meetings law, section 24-6-402, C.R.S., they should attempt to comply as fully as practicable with the spirit of that law.
(b) The state commission should post a notice on its web site, including specific agenda information where possible, not less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of any meeting at which a quorum of the state commission is expected to be in attendance.
(c) The state commission shall conduct all business publicly, unless it has decided to proceed in executive session in accordance with these rules. No adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action, shall occur at any executive session.
Rule 5. Executive Sessions.
A motion to go into executive session must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the commissioners, and for only the following purposes:
(a) Consideration of confidential materials as part of an evaluation of a justice, judge, or magistrate, including interviews and deliberations. Members of other commissions and staff may not be present during such consideration;
(b) Conferences with an attorney representing the commission concerning disputes involving the commission;
(c) Investigation of charges or complaints against an employee or consideration of dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of the employee;
(d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; or
(e) Any other matter required to be kept confidential by state or federal statutes or rules, including these rules.
Rule 6. Recusal.
(a) A commissioner shall disclose to the commission any professional or personal relationship with a justice, judge, or magistrate that may affect an unbiased evaluation of the justice, judge, or magistrate including any litigation involving the justice, judge, or magistrate and the commissioner, the commissioner’s family, or the commissioner’s business. A commission may require recusal of one of its members on account of such relationship upon a two-thirds vote of the other commissioners.
(b) A commissioner shall recuse himself or herself from participating in the consideration and vote on any matter involving the evaluation of a justice, judge, or magistrate, for failure to meet the training, courtroom observation, interview, or opinion review responsibilities provided by these rules, unless excused by a two-thirds vote of the other commissioners.
(c) Any attorney serving as a commissioner shall not 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 a case pending before a justice, judge, or magistrate being evaluated, solely on the basis that the attorney is serving as a judicial performance commissioner.
(d) An attorney who appears in a matter where opposing counsel or a witness serves as a member of a judicial performance commission which is evaluating the justice, judge, or magistrate before whom the matter is set, may not seek withdrawal of the attorney, exclusion of the witness, or recusal of the justice, judge, or magistrate solely on the basis that the opposing counsel or witness is serving as a judicial performance commissioner.
(e) 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, party, or witness is a judicial performance commissioner, nor should a justice, judge, or magistrate grant an attorney’s request to withdraw from a case, solely on the basis that the attorney, party, or witness is serving as a judicial performance commissioner.
Rule 7. Staff.
The director of the state commission, district administrators, and their staffs shall assist their respective commissions in the performance of their duties, including meeting and interview arrangements, obtaining and distributing information, and posting notices. Staff shall not participate in interviews or deliberations conducted by the commission concerning the evaluation of any justice, judge, or magistrate nor the drafting of narratives.
Rule 8. Chief Justice or Chief Judge.
Prior to beginning any evaluations, each commission shall meet with the chief justice or chief judge of the court for which there is a justice, judge, or magistrate to be evaluated that year. The meeting is to allow the chief justice or chief judge to provide an overview of the court, and shall not concern the evaluation of any justice, judge, or magistrate’s performance, unless the commission had previously made a recommendation for improvement for a justice, judge, or magistrate being evaluated that year.
Rule 9. Training.
The state commission shall provide training bi-annually that is reasonably accessible and convenient to all commissioners. Each commissioner shall attend one training session, or an appropriate alternative as determined by the state commission, each year in which the commissioner is to evaluate a justice, judge, or magistrate.
Rule 10. Trial Judge and Magistrate Evaluations.
(a) The state commission shall develop three separate survey questionnaires: one shall be for appellate judges and justices concerning each district judge, and district judges concerning each county judge or magistrate within the district; one shall be for attorneys including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys, who have appeared before the trial judge or magistrate; and one shall be for non-attorneys including litigants, jurors, probation officers, social services caseworkers, crime victims, guardians ad litem, court appointed special advocate volunteers, and peace officers who have appeared before each trial judge or magistrate being evaluated. Surveys shall be conducted on a continuing basis, and results provided to the district commission and the trial judge or magistrate. To ensure the anonymity of respondents, a district commission shall not receive completed questionnaires, and all reports of the results shall be based on aggregate data, excluding the percentage responding as "undecided or don’t know enough to respond". Comments shall be separated from completed questionnaires before the comments are forwarded to the trial judge or magistrate whom each comment concerns.
(b) Each district commissioner shall make unannounced visits to the courtroom to observe at least three of the trial judges or magistrates being evaluated. The district commission shall ensure that each trial judge or magistrate being evaluated receives adequate observation.
(c) The district administrator shall provide the district commission with information concerning the caseload, case types, open case reports and case aging reports, court trials, court trial days, jury trials, jury trial days, and sentence modifications pursuant to section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. for each trial judge or magistrate during the period of evaluation, to the extent possible.
(d) The state commission shall develop self-evaluation forms that shall be completed by each trial judge or magistrate being evaluated. The self-evaluation requirements may include, but are not limited to, capabilities and goals for development in the following areas: legal ability; integrity; communication skills; judicial temperament; administrative skills; settlement activities; knowledge of the law, collegiality, judicial philosophy and approach to judging; overall performance; and community service.
(e) Each district judge shall submit to the district commission three decisions he or she issued in accordance with Rule 52, C.R.C.P. Each county judge or magistrate shall submit to the district commission transcripts of three findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders. Each district commissioner shall review the decisions and transcripts for thoroughness of findings, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of the law to the facts presented.
(f) A district commission may consider oral or written information from any person who has appeared before the trial judge or magistrate during the previous year, if the person provides his or her name and address. The district commission shall provide the trial judge or magistrate with a written summary of any oral information, and a copy of any written information, no later than ten days prior to the interview with the commission. The trial judge or magistrate also may submit additional written information to the commission prior to or after the interview.
(g) The district commission shall interview each trial judge or magistrate being evaluated following its initial review of information.
Rule 11. Appellate Judge and Justice Evaluations.
(a) The state commission shall develop three separate survey questionnaires: one shall be for trial judges and magistrates concerning each appellate judge or justice being evaluated; one shall be for attorneys including prosecutors, public defenders, and private attorneys, who have appeared before the appellate judge or justice; and one shall be for other appellate judges and justices, and staff attorneys. Surveys shall be conducted on a continuing basis, and results provided to the state commission and the appellate judge or justice. To ensure the anonymity of respondents, the state commission shall not receive completed questionnaires, and all reports of the results shall be based on aggregate data, excluding the percentage responding as "undecided or don’t know enough to respond." Comments shall be separated before the comments are forwarded to the appellate judge or justice whom each comment concerns.
(b) Each state commissioner shall make unannounced visits to the courtroom to observe at least three of appellate judges or justices being evaluated. The state commission shall ensure that each appellate judge or justice being evaluated receives adequate observation.
(c) The clerks of the supreme court and the court of appeals shall provide the state commission with information concerning opinions authored including concurrences and dissents, and cases on desk reports excluding case names for each appellate judge or justice during the period of evaluation, to the extent possible.
(d) The state commission shall develop self-evaluation forms that shall be completed by each appellate judge or justice being evaluated. The self-evaluation requirements may include, but are not limited to, capabilities and goals for development in the following areas: legal ability; integrity; communication skills; judicial temperament; knowledge of the law, collegiality; judicial philosophy and approach to judging; overall performance; and community service.
(e) Each appellate judge or justice shall submit to the state commission five opinions he or she authored, including both civil and criminal cases, at least one separate concurrence or dissent, and in the case of a judge of the court of appeals, at least one unpublished opinion. Each state commissioner shall review the decisions, as well as five additional opinions authored by the appellate judge or justice, for adherence to the record, clarity of expression, logical reasoning, and application of the law to the facts presented.
(f) The state commission may consider oral or written information from any person who has appeared before the appellate judge or justice during the previous year, if the person provides his or her name and address. The state commission shall provide the appellate judge or justice with a written summary of any oral information, and a copy of any written information, no later than ten days prior to the interview with the commission. The appellate judge or justice also may submit additional written information to the commission prior to or after the interview.
(g) The state commission shall interview each appellate judge or justice being evaluated following its initial review of information.
Rule 12. Recommendations.
(a) Following the evaluation based upon the survey data, courtroom observations, case information, self-evaluations, review of decisions, interviews, and any other written or oral information received, a commission shall prepare a recommendation regarding the retention of each justice, judge, or magistrate. The recommendation shall be "retain," "do not retain," or "no opinion." The recommendation of "no opinion" shall be given only when the commission is equally divided, and as such shall not be counted for or against retention. Individual commissioners may not vote "no opinion," but shall vote to retain, or to not retain, or shall recuse themselves.
(b) A commission shall adopt a recommendation of "retain" for any justice, judge, or magistrate who receives an average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for the questionnaire responses, and issued no decision or opinion more than 180 days after a matter was briefed, argued, or otherwise submitted to the court for decision, whichever is latest, unless the other evaluation information indicates a significant performance problem, such as poor judicial temperament.
(c) A commission shall adopt a recommendation of "do not retain" for any justice, judge, or magistrate who receives less than an average of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for the questionnaire responses, unless:
(i) The nature or high number of cases of a justice, judge, or magistrate’s docket or caseload is such that it cannot appropriately be managed in a timely manner. This may be particularly true for a provisional justice or judge, who when appointed may inherit a significantly high number of cases that cannot be managed quickly; or
(ii) The commission believes that with additional experience on the bench and a commitment to improve his or her judicial skills, the justice, judge, or magistrate should be given more time to develop his or her judicial skills. The justice, judge, or magistrate must agree to the recommendations contained in a performance plan that identifies areas of significantly poor performance and makes specific recommendations for improvement.
Rule 13. Narratives.
(a) Within ten days following the interview, a commission shall provide the justice, judge, or magistrate a complete written draft of the narrative supporting the recommendation. A narrative shall consist of five short paragraphs totaling not more than 500 words, as follows:
(i) The retention recommendation, including a notation if the vote was unanimous;
(ii) Biographical data, such as undergraduate and law schools attended, educational degrees, professional association activities, recent awards and honors, and volunteer or other community work;
(iii) Information specific to the work of the justice, judge, or magistrate, and any other previous substantial legal or public employment;
(iv) A description of the performance of the justice, judge, or magistrate over the past term, including any areas of exemplary or distinguishing performance, and any areas of significantly poor performance; and
(v) Any additional information that the commission believes may be of assistance to the public in making an informed voting decision, including description of the groups of respondents surveyed, whether any of the groups surveyed had an insufficient response rate, the percentage of responses received from each group who recommend that a justice, judge, or magistrate be retained, and the percentage received from each group who recommend that a justice, judge, or magistrate not be retained.
(b) The justice, judge, or magistrate being evaluated may respond in writing to the draft narrative, and request an additional interview, within ten days of receipt of the draft. Any additional interview shall be held within ten days of the request.
(c) Any commission issuing a "do not retain" recommendation shall, at the justice, judge, or magistrate’s request, include a response from the justice, judge, or magistrate of not more than 100 words. The commission shall provide the justice, judge, or magistrate with the final narrative within ten days following the additional interview.
(d) If the commission has identified one or more areas of significantly poor performance, it may recommend to the chief justice or chief judge that the justice, judge, or magistrate be placed on an improvement plan.
Rule 14. Confidentiality.
(a) All comments in survey reports, self-evaluations, personal information protected under section 24-72-204(3)(a)(II), C.R.S., additional oral or written information under rule 10(f), content of improvement plans, and any matter discussed in executive session under rule 5, shall remain confidential except as otherwise specifically provided in these rules. Comments in survey reports may be summarized for use in a narrative. Only the commission’s designated spokesperson may publicly discuss the recommendation, narrative, survey data, information gathered from public hearings, and the commission’s recommendation for an improvement plan. A commissioner may not publicly discuss the evaluation of any particular justice, judge, or magistrate.
(b) All recommendations, narratives, and survey reports are confidential until released to the public on the first day following the deadline for judges to declare their intent to stand for retention. Any comments included in the report shall be made available only to commissioners, the justice, judge, or magistrate being evaluated, and the chief justice or chief judge.
(c) Otherwise confidential information may be released only under the following circumstances:
(i) To 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 Colorado rules of professional conduct, on the same basis as that body provides confidential information to the state commission;
(ii) To 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, on the same basis as that body provides confidential information to the state commission; or
(iii) With the consent of the justice, judge, or magistrate.
Rule 15. Records.
Upon completing its required recommendations and narratives, each commission shall collect all documents and other information, including all copies, received regarding the justices, judges, or magistrates evaluated. Each commission shall forward the documents and other information, including all copies, to the state commission within 30 days following submission of their recommendations and narratives to the state commission. The state commission shall establish guidelines regarding retention of evaluation information, which shall be made available to commissions in subsequent judicial performance evaluation cycles.
Rule 16. Complaints.
Any commissioner, justice, judge, or magistrate may file a written complaint with the state commission regarding any alleged violation of these rules or the statutes governing judicial performance commissions. The state commission shall provide a copy to the chair of the particular district commission, who shall provide a written response. The state commission shall make an independent review and provide its determination to the district commission along with any remedial instructions. The state commission may not reverse any retention recommendation, but may cause a rebuttal to be published with the district commission’s recommendation or direct a district commission to revise a narrative within ten days. Should the district commission fail to satisfactorily comply, the state commission may, in its discretion, rewrite the narrative.
Repealed and Readopted by the Court, En Banc, June 28, 2007, effective January 1, 2008.
Justice Martinez would not approve the new rules.
By the Court:
Nancy E. Rice, Justice
Colorado Supreme Court
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: http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doah.
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 due to space restrictions. To obtain a copy of attachments, contact: Court Services Division, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., #300, Denver, CO 80203; or visit http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doah.
Chief Justice Directive 04-02
Fiscal Policies and Procedures
Revised September 2007
The Colorado Supreme Court approves the fiscal policies and procedures, and subsequent amendments, established by the State Court Administrator, pursuant to the requirements of Section 13-3-106 (2), C.R.S. Each court of record, including judicial officers, probation departments, and all Judicial Department personnel, shall comply with the fiscal policies and procedures established by the State Court Administrator. Upon a showing that extraordinary circumstances prevent a court or probation office from complying with a fiscal policy or procedure, the director of the financial services division may waive the application of the policy or procedure and may require a compensating control.
CJD 04-02 is revised and adopted effective September 1, 2007.
Done at Denver, Colorado this 28th day of August 2007.
By the Court:
Mary J. Mullarkey, Chief Justice
Colorado Supreme Court