Colo. Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.15

History

Source: Comments amended and effective June 3, 2021. COMMENT [1] Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is promoted when judges take appropriate action based on reliable evidence of misconduct. Appropriate action de- pends on the circumstances, but the overarching goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those affected by misconduct and to prevent recurrence. [2] Taking action to address known mis- conduct is a judge’s obligation. Paragraphs (A) and (B) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regard- ing the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial col- leagues or members of the legal profession un- dermines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This Rule limits the reporting obliga- tion to those offenses that an independent judi- ciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent. [3] A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives infor- mation indicating a substantial likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropri- ate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the sus- pected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly, actions to be taken in response to information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include but are not limited to communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the ap- propriate authority or other agency or body. ETHICS OPINIONS Withdrawing Opinion 2004-01, the Board de- termines that a judge’s report of attorney mis- conduct, without more, does not require the judge automatically to recuse from the reported attorney’s cases. If the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against the attorney, or if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be ques- tioned if the judge did not recuse, the judge must recuse from the reported attorney’s cases. If the judge determines that the judge must recuse, the judge’s disqualification from the re- ported attorney’s cases does not require the judge to recuse in pending or new cases filed generally by the attorney’s law firm but that do not include an entry of appearance by the re- ported attorney. Colo. J.E.A.B. Ad. Op. 2011- 01. A judge who reports an attorney to Attorney Regulation Counsel but concludes that disquali- fication from the attorney’s cases is not required has a duty to sit on the reported attorney’s cases and must disclose the report to the parties and their counsel until the disciplinary proceeding stemming from the report has been closed. Colo. J.E.A.B. Ad. Op. 2012-06.