Colorado

In a society where only 26 percent of adults can name all three branches of the federal government and a third cannot even name one, Colorado's judicial branch has sought to improve its citizens’ civics knowledge through Our Courts Colorado. The nonpartisan program provides civics education presentations in both English and Spanish for adults in their communities across the state, many given by state and federal judges.

The Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law, whose Executive Director is Steve Susman, is organizing a Jury Improvement Lunch for the Colorado bench and bar this Thursday, November 2. The goal of the lunch is to honor jurors who have recently served by inviting them to attend a lunch with judges and lawyers in the community to share their experiences and to learn from them about what can be done to improve civil trials. These education programs, dubbed “Jury Improvement Lunches,” began in Texas and have been held in Houston, Dallas, and Corpus Christi. In addition to Denver, the project is now organizing similar lunches in Boston, Baltimore, San Francisco, Kansas City, Seattle, Oklahoma City, and Cleveland.

This week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed legislation to reauthorize and restructure the state’s judicial performance evaluation (JPE) program. Colorado was one of the first states in the nation to establish a JPE program to help judges improve their own performance on the bench and inform voters about that performance for judicial retention elections. The 1988 legislation that created Colorado’s program included a provision scheduling the program for repeal in 30 years—on June 30, 2019. Earlier this year, both the General Assembly and the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation tackled head-on the challenge of drafting new legislation to keep the program in place, and IAALS applauds their efforts.

Since Colorado is IAALS’ home base, we are thrilled to join in the celebration of the state’s 50th anniversary of the adoption of merit selection for judges. Colorado was at the forefront of a national merit selection movement that took place in the mid- and late-twentieth century.

Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Rice is implementing a new resource for self-represented litigants—the Colorado Equal Access Center. The Center supplements the Colorado Judicial Department’s ongoing efforts to respond to a substantial justice gap in Colorado courts (and in states around the country).

As the number of self-represented litigants (or pro se litigants) continue to rise, the legal profession continues to explore alternative means of providing services beyond the traditional lawyer-client relationship. Because many litigants choose to forgo representation due to the cost of hiring an attorney, unbundled legal services are gaining more traction as a way to reduce costs while still providing valuable counsel for clients.

A recent study by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is shedding new light on the demographics of state judiciaries across the country. The Gavel Gap project collected data based on the race, ethnicity, and gender of 10,000 sitting state court judges, and then analyzed how closely each state’s bench reflects its population.

Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Fern Fisher of the New York City Courts recently addressed the Colorado Supreme Court Advisory Committee and its Limited License Legal Technician (LLLTs) Subcommittee.

In April, there will be a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for Colorado due to the impending retirement of Judge Robert Blackburn. As with all Article III judgeships, the President will nominate someone to fill the seat, and that person must then be confirmed by a majority of the Senate—no small task in the final year of President Obama’s second term and with divided government.

As of July 1, 2015, Colorado has adopted new amendments to its rules of civil procedure with the goal of achieving a more accessible and efficient road to justice. The amended rules seek to increase the involvement of judges in pretrial activity, limit discovery to what is needed to prove a case, and increase a judge’s ability to award sanctions for noncompliance with the rules.