Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Couple who lost part of lot get nowhere with complaint

By Vanessa Miller, Daily Camera

Published November 21, 2007 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

The Colorado Supreme Court's Attorney Regulation Counsel has rejected a Boulder couple's request that the state investigate their neighbors, a former judge and attorney, for ethical misconduct.

The couple's request came after their neighbors used an obscure legal concept to seize a portion of their property.

Don and Susie Kirlin made an oral complaint to the state's Office of Attorney Regulation - days before other community members filed similar complaints - about Richard McLean and his wife, Edith Stevens, who last month won a court case that allowed them to take possession of a portion of a vacant lot that belonged to the Kirlins for nearly 25 years.

The Kirlins said that McLean, a former judge and former Boulder mayor, and attorney Stevens misused their legal background and experience by knowingly breaking the law for years - by trespassing - to eventually use a little-known doctrine known as "adverse possession" in their favor.

Critics also question whether McLean and Stevens used their legal clout to get their way in court.

Although some people filed complaints this week, Susie Kirlin said she made her complaint last week and heard back from the state Monday.

Legal officials said they couldn't consider a complaint against McLean, because he's a former judge and issues with his conduct must be taken up with the state's Commission on Judicial Discipline.

In reference to the complaint against Stevens, assistant regulation counsel Louise Culberson-Smith said in a letter to the Kirlins that after discussing the issue with "six different lawyers in my office," including Supreme Court regulation counsel John Gleason, "We all agree that a successful adverse possession claim does not constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct."

The letter goes on to say, "Colorado law specifically allows adverse possession. A court of competent jurisdiction examined Ms. Stevens' claim and ruled in her favor. Pursuing a civil action that is permitted by state statute and upheld by a court of law is not misconduct."

Culberson-Smith advised that if the Kirlins want to challenge the court's decision, "Your recourse is through an appellate court, not this office."

Comments

  • November 21, 2007

    11:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peteSmith writes:

    Colorado Attorney Deregulation Council's Louise Culberson-Smith rejects request to investigate report of former judge and attorney knowingly using their position to adversely possess a neighbor's land. Big Surprise (Not) - Aside from the fact that this fact situation "smells," the article claims that the OARC "couldn't consider a complaint against . . . [the]. . . former judge . . .[because] issues with his conduct must be taken up with the state's Commission on Judicial Discipline." However, in another recent Rocky Mountain News article (concerning Colorado's Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline), it is reported that, "[I]n 41 years, the commission has never recommended to the state Supreme Court that a judge be removed because of misconduct. Instead, 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." See http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news... So which is it?

    For more info. regarding our "Commission for the Abolition of Judicial Discipline" see http://www.knowyourcourts.com/JDC/JDC...
    For more info. regarding our "Attorney Deregulation Council" see http://www.knowyourcourts.com/CARC/CA...

  • November 27, 2007

    3:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dashil writes:

    It is a sad day when neighbors openly steal from you. I guess this ruling means that any person who walks on a neighbors' property routinely could claim their land. Meanwhile we should all stop being "neighborly" and put up razor wire!

    Instead of appealing the ruling, the Kirlin's should send a bill to the thieves for use of their properties...and add interest accrual to it too!