The Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel and Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline do not serve to protect the public from corrupt attorneys, magistrates, and judges. Instead they screen these corrupt individuals from the formal complaints of an otherwise defenseless public. They hold these individuals to a lower standard than that prescribed by law and to which they would hold the citizenry accountable.
On November 6, 2002 the Denver Post reported that the Attorney Regulation Counsel initiated investigations into only 432 of the 4,507 formal complaints it received in the year 2000 citing the ABA as it's source. And how did John Gleason, Director respond? "Unfortunately, they don't understand the nature of the Colorado program," said Gleason, who was "incensed at the claim that Colorado investigates only a small number of claims."
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/...
I beg to disagree with Gleason, however, as an independent study recently showed his contentions are merely hot air. HALT, a Washington-based legal reform group, produced a 2006 Lawyer Discipline Report Card that concluded the following. "The problem in Colorado is that it has one of the worst investigation rates in the country --it looks into less than 10 percent of the grievances coming in the door," said HALT. Thus, no investigations mean no disciplinary hearings and no lawyer regulation.
http://www.knowyourcourts.com/...
If you examine judicial regulation in Colorado, the results are much the same. Colorado's Commission on Judicial Discipline was founded in 1966 to oversee the district court level of the judiciary and those employed in lower courts. The Commission consists of 10 members including citizens, judges and attorneys. Since it’s inception, however, the Commission has not ever recommended to the state Supreme Court that a single judge be removed because of misconduct.
According to a recent article by Ivan Moreno in the Rocky Mountain News, "judges often choose to retire or resign when there's an investigation pending against them. Once judges leave, the commission loses its power to discipline them, and the record of their misconduct remains private. Rick Wehmhoefer, executive director and general counsel for the commission, said the fact that cases rarely rise to the level of a public reprimand is a good reflection on Colorado judges."
http://www.rockymoun...
I beg to disagree with Wehmhoefer’s defense as well. The failure of the Commission to unseat even a single judge in its entire history bespeaks of cover-ups, corruption, ethics violations, and arguably criminal neglect. The fact that accused judges are allowed to simply "retire or resign" when accused throws a cloud of deceit over the entire process. This lack of transparency in judicial investigations, and the resultant lack of accountability on the part of the Commission and judges statewide, has netted the unblemished record of the Colorado judiciary and the Commission. The public certainly doesn’t believe that it is due to the high moral and ethics standard of the entire Colorado judiciary.
Gleason’s tenure at the Attorney Regulation Counsel, and his staff’s, beg for Congressional or Grand Jury investigation as their mere termination will not suffice to bring justice to the citizenry or to restore public trust. Similarly, Wehmhoefer’s termination is insufficient as well. Not only have both wasted Colorado taxpayer dollars which support their salaries and their staffs, they continue deliberate, failed regulation without reprisal. As a result, corruption continues in Colorado courts every day due to the impunity granted court officials by these individuals and non-regulating agencies. It’s time for transparency, accountability, and regulation in Colorado’s courts and government.