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

Complaint still hangs over judge

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

A piece of U.S. District Court Judge Edward Nottingham's legal troubles is still unresolved before a state ethics panel, despite his resignation from the bench.

Nottingham stepped down Tuesday amid allegations of judicial misconduct involving a prostitute. The allegations were being investigated by the 10th Circuit Court Judicial Council.

A Minnesota man who has tangled with Nottingham in a federal court case filed the same charges last April with the state's Attorney Regulation Council, which investigates ethical complaints against lawyers.

A negative ruling by that panel could be a roadblock if Nottingham decides to resume practicing law in Colorado.

Sean Harrington said he made the complaint because the state panel is supposed to protect the public from bad lawyers.

Nottingham's attorney did not return phone calls for comment.

John Gleason, who heads the Attorney Regulation Council, said he can't comment on the substance of the complaint against Nottingham but said the case will be investigated like any other complaint.

The panel, which is appointed by the Colorado Supreme Court, can impose penalties ranging from a letter of reprimand to disbarment.

The state agency declined to investigate in April when Harrington filed the case because of the 10th Circuit probe but did not rule out involvement later.

Harrington already has asked the ARC to take up his complaint.

Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Robert Henry said he would not have a statement about the case until Nottingham's resignation takes effect Wednesday.

Harrington, who represented himself in an interstate divorce proceeding, drew derision from the judge by filing a motion that was 2,600 pages long.

"It is impossible to follow or make sense of this heap," Nottingham wrote in an order dismissing Harrington's case.

Comments

  • October 23, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peteSmith writes:

    A copy of the complaint and response is located at: http://www.knowyourcourts.com/CARC/CA...

  • October 23, 2008

    10:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    peteSmith writes:

    Berny: We talked on the phone yesterday, when you had an ample opportunity to get the facts straight. The case wasn't an interstate divorce case, which --of course-- can't be brought into federal court. It was diversity case. http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Harring... Also, I asked that we not talk about my case, because that's not what the issue is. Nobody care's about my case and I understand that.

    The Motion (which, by the way, was an objection) was 68 pages long. (See document # 76 on the Web page listed above). The objection was filed as a digital brief. It's 2600+ pages only if you're a moron and count all the hyperlinked material, which --of course-- you don't count. Hyperlinking, which is for the convenience of the court (or clerk reading the brief) provides all the precedents, statutes, rule text and secondary authorities at the judge's fingertips for easy reference. See, e.g., http://www.attyclientpriv.com/e-Brief... The fact that this document showed up as 2600+ pages on Nottingham's computer screen is merely an indication that he was too lazy to actually open up the document (where it is made clear on the first page what was the brief and what was reference material). I'm assuming that he didn't do so because it interfered with his one-handed internet surfing.

    Now, if you think that 68-pages is still too long for a brief, consider that Nacchio's attorney filed a brief that was 80+ pages on the single topic of excluding an expert witness. Whereas Nottingham expressly refused to read my brief, he gave Nacchio's attorneys' brief a dutiful study and wrote a prolix Order regarding it.

    That, of course, is the typical double-standard dual-track system of justice that we should expect from the district court in Colorado. See http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Archive... for an exposè I wrote on that topic.

  • October 24, 2008

    6:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bouldergeist writes:

    When it comes to legal reporting, the Rocky is so incompetent, they couldn't get a story right if you wrote it for 'em.

  • October 24, 2008

    6:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bouldergeist writes:

    Unfortunately, Kay hasn't learned the rule that brevity is next to godliness.