Gleason, Attorney Regulation Counsel v. Judicial Watch, Inc. 2012 COA 76 (April 26, 2012)

It is hard to peek behind the judicial curtains to watch the wizards work. In this case, the wizard is the Attorney Regulation Counsel, and the work is investigations of attorney misconduct.  Relying on the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), the trial court permitted access to most of the regulation counsel’s records related to an investigation of a number of attorneys. The court of appeals reversed. Although mentioning the conflict between the interest of disclosure and the interest of maintaining confidential information, in the end it was a matter of statutory construction.  The court found that regulation counsel is part of the judicial branch, and CORA does not apply to the judicial branch.  Therefore, regulation counsel’s records are not subject to disclosure under CORA. The Court’s own rules on access to judicial records might have applied, but they were not raised as an issue.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA0930-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8496&courtid=1

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Attorney Regulation

2 responses to “Gleason, Attorney Regulation Counsel v. Judicial Watch, Inc. 2012 COA 76 (April 26, 2012)

  1. Justice Monica Marquez would have granted certiorari review of this case.
    https://coloradolitigation.wordpress.com/certiori/justice-monica-m-marquez/

    Like

  2. Pingback: One New Grant and Three “would have granted” cases. | Colorado Litigation Report

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s