• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Thomas McDowell of Colorado Springs writes:

I will be the first to commend you on your coverage of the apparent obstruction of justice coverage by the Supreme Court Administrator involving the stolen laptop as corageous (did anyone else notice the deafening silence from the Post?).
At the other end of the scale was Ivan Moreno’s unquestioning use of Legal Profession propaganda in his story on the “Attorney’s Client Protection Fund”
Here are some facts:
1. The Supreme Court resisted setting up this fund so many years that Colorado was the last of the 50 states to create such a fund.
2. While many professions are required to carry liability insurance at a cost measured in the thousands of dollars per year, lawyers pay $20 a year into their fund in lieu of insurance. They regularly pat themselves on the back for doing so.
3. The fund does not cover individuals who are not clients of the attorney who damaged them. An attorney can intentionally create unethical havoc to damage a litigant and intentionally run up his bills, and, unlike an insurance company, the fund wouldn’t pay a cent. I have an uncollectable judgement against an attorney for doing just that, so I know first hand.
4. Even for those covered, the limit of pay out is $100,000, an amount only exceeded by the good graces of the Chief Justice. Her decisions cannot be questioned in court.
The Colorado Bar Association regularly argues against any judicial accountability, claiming to the gullible that it threatens judicial independence. They spent $1.3 million to defeat Amendment 40. The quid pro quo is that they are essentially unregulated by the courts. Thus, they can avoid paying for insurance and pay $20 a year instead into a fund that provides very little protection to the public.
“Judicial Independence” has some real down sides. When citizens begin to connect the dots of the costs of judicial unaccountability, they will decide that putting judges up for retention election more often is a good idea. Even better would be the creation of an Attorney Regulation Office that is independent of lawyers and the Courts and actually did protect the public.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

I paid a lawyer $300; he didn't do the job; he kept the money; I complained to the Regulation Office staffed by lawyers of, by, and for lawyers and they also stiffed me. Me, your friendly deicide.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly