2012 COA 76
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Judicial Watch sought access to records under CORA concerning regulation counsel's appointment and authority related to an Arizona bar investigation.
- Regulation counsel denied disclosure; both sides filed separate court actions for relief, consolidated in the trial court.
- Regulation counsel was appointed by the Arizona Chief Justice, with Colorado Supreme Court involvement, to investigate Arizona attorneys.
- The court ordered disclosure of most requested records except for detailed billing records in Request (6).
- The central issue was whether CORA applies to the judiciary and thus requires disclosure of regulation counsel's records.
- The court framed balances between public openness and confidentiality of sensitive attorney-regulation information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is regulation counsel part of the judicial branch? | Judicial Watch | Regulation counsel | Regulation counsel is part of the judicial branch |
| Does CORA cover the judiciary for purposes of disclosure? | Judicial Watch argues CORA applies to judiciary records | Regulation counsel contends CORA does not include the judiciary as state or state agency | CORA does not apply to judiciary records |
| If CORA does not apply, can court rules govern access? | Judicial Watch seeks CORA-based relief only and rejects court-rule framework | Regulation counsel relies on court rules and directives for access | We take no position on court-rule applicability; waiver applies |
| Should the trial court have granted access to most records under CORA? | Judicial Watch seeks broad access under CORA | Regulation counsel argues CORA does not control release of judiciary records | Trial court erred in granting CORA-based access; reversed as to most records |
| Should Judicial Watch recover attorney fees? | Judicial Watch seeks fees under CORA/C.A.R. 39.5 | No fee entitlement since CORA did not authorize disclosure | No attorney-fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of State Court Administrator v. Background Information Services, Inc., 994 P.2d 420 (Colo. 1999) (CORA courts not defined as state agencies; judiciary separate)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Stapleton Development Corp., 19 P.3d 36 (Colo. 2000) (legislative amendments reflect CORA interpretation and public records policy)
- Times-Call Publishing Co. v. Wingfield, 410 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1966) (courts may not unduly restrict access in matters of public interest)
- Colo. Supreme Court Grievance Comm. v. Dist. Court, 850 P.2d 150 (Colo. 1993) (judicial authority to regulate lawyers and supervise the practice of law)
- Conway-Bogue Realty Inv. Co. v. Denver Bar Ass'n, 312 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1957) (judicial branch powers to regulate the practice of law)