Source: http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/category/practice/
Timestamp: 2014-09-17 23:35:32
Document Index: 273953387

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8']

Practice Management - CBA CLE Legal Connection
You are here: Home / Archives for Practice ManagementIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part II: The Interviews: Anne Vitek—Planning for and Managing Your Retirement Sortie September 16, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund Leave a Comment Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the September 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the second part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for Part 1.
InQ.: Anne, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted do as a career? How old were you when you first had serious thoughts about exiting the full-time practice of law? What prompted this change in your thinking?
Anne: From about age 14, I thought I wanted to be a lawyer. I was 29 when I started practicing law full-time, and did so for thirty-four years, almost to the day. I always knew that I would retire from practicing law. I was probably in my late 40s when I started thinking about where I would retire to.
InQ: How old were you when you first started making concrete plans to exit the full-time practice of law? What was your thought process?
Anne: I was 58 when I started making plans to exit. I had been practicing law for thirty-four years. We all have a limited lifespan and I wanted to do something different with the remainder of my life. My husband and I did a lot of work for the state and our contracts lasted for two years. We timed the contracts so that they were completed as we were closing down the practice. However, we still wanted to earn a living until we were ready to retire, so we took on more hourly work. Since our practice was primarily trial work, we could practice from our home. We did so for the last three years, which substantially reduced our overhead.
InQ: Did you develop any sort of plan as far as how to accomplish your retirement goals?
Anne: My plan was to begin thinking about retirement when I was in my 50s and to try to assure that I would have the financial resources to retire. At that point, and perhaps earlier, I began to assess possible retirement sites and to determine how they would fill my retirement needs. Once we started thinking that we might retire in Paris (around 2002), we began taking French classes at the Alliance Française in Denver. My plan was based primarily on financial considerations. I think it took a little longer to implement than I had anticipated because of the substantial stock market losses in the preceding years. My husband and I purchased our apartment in Paris in 2006 and retired in 2012, so it took about six years from the first concrete step toward retirement in Paris until our actual retirement.
InQ: What sort of obstacles to your plan cropped up, and did you ever think about reversing course?
Anne: The only obstacles that arose were the fluctuations in the stock market and the effect that they had on our ability to have sufficient funds to retire. The only strategies we could employ were to work longer so that we would have additional financial resources, given the volatility of the stock market. Although we had at one time had a law firm that included eight attorneys, in addition to ourselves and numerous staff, we had downsized in anticipation of retirement. So, the only person who was affected by our retirement was our longtime secretary. Fortunately, she was considering plans to stop working, so it worked out well for us and for her.
We did not ever think about reversing course. I think we’d had personally satisfying careers in the legal profession, but we were ready for a change. We had reached a stage in our lives where we wanted to indulge our interests in art, photography, and jazz. We also wanted the opportunity to travel.
InQ: Some say that the biggest obstacles to retreating from the full-time practice are the inability to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time, fears of not being able to fill the time, and not having enough money later in life. Did any of these factors affect your thinking?
Anne: I think that for most people who spend the majority of their adult life working at a profession, their sense of self is inextricably woven with their professional life. Thus, I do think that the idea of “not having a profession, not being a lawyer” can be daunting. As to the notion that one will not be able to fill the time, I can only say that we are as busy as or busier than we were when we were practicing law. We have organized our nonprofessional life much as we organized our professional life. The difference is that we are now free to pursue our own interests rather than the interests of our clients. In my opinion, it is essential to try to be as organized in retirement as one was when practicing law. In other words, we have a schedule that includes working out, taking classes, attending lectures, visiting museums, etcetera. We tend to organize our week in retirement much as we organized our agenda when we were trial attorneys.
InQ: What about financial concerns?
Anne: Certainly, there are always financial concerns. Of course, individuals with a pension may have fewer financial concerns than those who were self-employed and who must rely on their investments to fund their retirement. Obviously, there is always going to be uncertainty. I think that one needs to balance the regret of not having enjoyed a change of lifestyle against the possibility that one may not be able to maintain that lifestyle into very old age.
InQ: How did your significant other react during the course of you exploring options other than the full-time practice of law?
Anne: I was fortunate that my husband was as keen to be retired as I was. He was a full partner in the decision to retire as soon as it was financially feasible. He manages our finances and his competence in that regard made retirement a reality for us. My husband and I practiced law as partners for twenty-five years, so we were used to making decisions as a team. We had the advantage of having run a business as a team. I think that this business experience spilled over into our personal relationship. I feel that we have always made decisions in our personal lives as a team. I can quite honestly say that neither one of us has ever had veto power over the choices of the other. There were not any tensions resulting from our retreating from the full-time practice of law.
Anne: Because we do not have children, I think our decision to leave the United States was easier. I think that having children would impact one’s decision-making process, if one had financial responsibilities toward those children. However, aging parents are also a consideration. In our case, my mother-in law, who was in the beginning stages of dementia, came to live with us in 2009. By 2010, her condition had deteriorated and we placed her in a nursing home within walking distance of our home. Luckily, she remembered my husband and me, but unfortunately she had no other memory. After consideration, we decided that we would go to Paris as planned in 2012. Our plan was to place my mother-in-law in a facility in Florida near my brother. She had retired to Florida and still had friends there who would visit her. Additionally, my family also would visit periodically. We would make two extended visits to Florida per year to spend time with her. However, she died in the fall of 2011 at the age of 89. I think that aged parents may be more of a concern for many potential retirees than children, especially if they are financially responsible for the parent.
InQ: What sort of activities have you embraced to fill the time you formerly devoted to the full-time practice of law? How satisfying have those activities been, and have you run into any unexpected issues arising from engaging in them?
Anne: We have been very actively engaged in many pursuits since our retirement. We are also actively involved in improving our French, and we are making a new circle of friends in Paris. Of course, this requires us to be sociable and to explore new venues where we might meet people to befriend. I believe this is a real plus in retirement. I think constant exploration is the key to a successful retirement and more important for a fulfilling life.
Anne: I’m sure we made some mistakes, but none of them were significant enough to have impacted our retirement plans. I can honestly say that I would not have done anything differently, except that I might have worked harder on honing my skills in French while I was planning for retirement.
Anne: I thought I would miss having a professional identification and that I would have more time to pursue other interests than I actually have.
Anne: I was happy practicing law and I am happy now.
Anne: Obviously, financial considerations do play a large part in the decision to retire, to stop working outside the home, or to change careers. I think financial considerations did delay our retirement. In the end, I think we made the right decision for us, and I think we gave financial considerations the right amount of weight.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career satisfaction, job search, job transition, law practice management, The Colorado LawyerIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part II September 9, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund 1 Comment Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the September 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the first part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. By Ronald M. Sandgrund, Esq., InQ.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career satisfaction, career transition, job satisfaction, law practice managementIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Jaimee Reed—Getting Out, Starting Over September 2, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund Leave a Comment Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the final part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction, click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, click here for an interview with Roxanne Jensen, and click here for an interview with Kevin Rhodes.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career satisfaction, career transition, job satisfaction, law practice management, The Colorado LawyerIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Kevin Rhodes—Exit Strategies Galore August 25, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund Leave a Comment Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the fourth part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction,click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, click here for an interview with Roxanne Jensen, and stay tuned for more interviews.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career transition, happiness, job satisfaction, law practice management, The Colorado LawyerIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Roxanne Jensen—Balancing Work and Family While Staying Engaged and Challenged August 19, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund Leave a Comment Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the third part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction, click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, and stay tuned for more interviews.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career, career transition, job satisfaction, job transition, law practice management, solo small firm, The Colorado Lawyer6 Ways To Overcome Fear of Failure August 15, 2014 By Susan Cartier Liebel Leave a Comment Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on the ALPS 411 blog on August 11, 2014. Reprinted with permission.
Filed Under: CLE, Practice Management Tagged With: career transition, CLE, CLE programs, hanging your shingle, job satisfaction, law practice management, solo small firmIs There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Kyle Velte—Less Stress, More Time With Her Children August 12, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund 3 Comments Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the second part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction, and stay tuned for more interviews.
The Inquiring Lawyer (InQ.): Kyle, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted to do as a career?
Kyle: I did not think about practicing law until after college and I entered the working world. I had planned on being a college professor, and I was taking a few years off before applying to PhD programs. I worked at the National Organization for Women in Washington, DC, where one of my jobs was to run the internship program. As part of that program, I took interns to a U.S. Supreme Court argument. One of the arguments I saw was Romer v. Evans. When I saw Jean Dubofsky argue on behalf of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender plaintiffs, I then and there decided to go to law school and become a lawyer.
InQ.: How old were you when you started practicing law full-time?
Kyle: I had two judicial clerkships after law school—one at the age of 28, the other at 30. (I completed an LLM in between clerkships.) I entered a firm when I was 31.
InQ.: How long did you practice law full-time?
Kyle: Nine years.
InQ.: How old were you when you first had any serious thoughts about exiting the full-time practice of law? Did something in particular prompt this thought?
Kyle: A few years into practice—around the age of 35—I began thinking about exiting to teach law. My pre-law school plan had been to be a college professor, so teaching law always loomed in the back of my mind as something I would like to do.
InQ.: How old were you when you first started making concrete plans to exit the full-time practice of law, and what was your thought process?
Kyle: When I was 40 years old (eight-and-a-half years into practice), I had the chance to teach an adjunct class at the University of Denver School of Law (Denver Law). I did that while continuing to practice full-time. I loved teaching. My thought process was to try adjunct teaching first, before deciding to make the big move, to see if I really did like it as much as I expected to. I did.
InQ.: Why did you want to leave the full-time practice of law?
Kyle: For several reasons. Although I was in a regional, mid-sized litigation firm, where my focus was commercial litigation, with fantastic colleagues and interesting and engaging work, I was growing tired of litigation as a whole. The constant conflict and stress, the travel, and the unpredictable and sometimes very large number of hours (particularly around trial) began to wear me down. In addition, I have children and wanted a more consistent, less stressful job to spend more time with them.
InQ.: Did you develop any sort of plan as to how to accomplish this goal?
Kyle: My plan was to try to teach as an adjunct first. I was able to do that, which in turn led me to my current position at Denver Law.
InQ.: How long did you expect it would take you to implement your plan?
Kyle: I wasn’t entirely sure. I had planned to continue teaching as an adjunct while practicing for at least as long as it took me to write and publish a law review article, which is highly encouraged to enter academia. However, I didn’t have to wait even that long, because my current position opened just a few months after I finished teaching my first adjunct class. I just got lucky on timing. The position I’m currently in opened in the fall of 2011, and I finished teaching my adjunct class in April 2011. I saw the opening, applied, and by November 2011, I was a full-time faculty member of Denver Law’s Legal Externship Program.
InQ.: What sort of obstacles cropped up, if any, impeding the plan’s implementation?
Kyle: The biggest obstacle was financial: figuring out how to manage a significant pay cut.
InQ.: How well did you manage this obstacle, and what strategies did you employ?
Kyle: I worked with a financial planner and figured out a way to make the financial transition.
Kyle: Only briefly, when the financial obstacle had not been overcome. But I never reversed course. Except for a pro bono matter that ended in March 2013, I have not practiced law since November 2011.
InQ.: Some say that the biggest obstacle to retreating from the full-time practice of the law is the inability to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time. Others say it is a fear of not being able to fill the time. Still others say it is a concern of not having enough money later in life. What do you think of each of these suggested impediments and how, if at all, did they affect your thinking?
Kyle: The first two concerns never entered my mind. I knew that I would find enjoyable and fulfilling work in teaching law. The money issue was the biggest challenge, and it gave me great pause.
InQ.: How did your significant other—if you had one—react during the course of exploring options other than the full-time practice of law?
Kyle: As a single parent without a significant other, making this change was a particular challenge for me. No matter how wonderful a private firm is, litigation never stops, and when you’re in trial, everything else in your life comes to a standstill. Now that I am out of practice, I have a very predictable schedule; my stress level is way lower (which makes me a better parent); and I’m much more involved in my kids’ lives, volunteering in the classroom, chaperoning field trips, being home at night to help with homework, etcetera.
Kyle: I still work full-time, so there is no need to fill any time. In addition, because I am no longer a litigator and no longer have a billable-hours requirement, I have been able to do more than when I was practicing. I now sit on four boards of directors and I am active in specialty bar associations.
InQ.: During your decision-making and decision-implementing process, what mistakes, if any, do you feel you made?
Kyle: Looking back, I don’t have any regrets and don’t feel like I made any mistakes.
Kyle: I had assumed that it would be difficult to find an opportunity outside practice that would still be engaging to me and also one for which I would be qualified. However, I also assumed that if I were to find such a position, I would be able to find a fulfilling and satisfying professional experience outside practice. The first assumption was wrong: there are, contrary to my assumption, many non-practice opportunities that are engaging, interesting, and fulfilling, and for which practicing attorneys will be given serious consideration. My assumption that I could be professionally satisfied outside practice was completely accurate. In fact, I’m more satisfied now.
InQ.: Did any tensions arise between you and others, including your children, as a result of you retreating from the full-time practice of law?
InQ.: How happy were you when practicing law full-time and how happy are you now?
Kyle: I was content while practicing and sometimes happy. I am extremely happy with my career now, and often think to myself: “I really love my job and am so lucky to have it.”
Kyle: As noted above, it was an obstacle—and a scary one—but I overcame it and have learned lessons about what I really need to be happy.
Kyle: Just the right amount.
Kyle: It impacted it for sure, because I had to make sure that I could still provide for them. Once I figured that out, I knew that leaving the practice of law would be a big benefit to them, as well as to me.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career, career transition, job satisfaction, job transition, law practice management, The Colorado LawyerThe InQuiring Lawyer: Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I August 5, 2014 By Ronald M. Sandgrund 3 Comments Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the first part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Stay tuned for the interviews.
Introduction to Part I of the Dialogue
This two-part article discusses an issue all lawyers must face during their careers: developing and deploying an exit strategy. This can mean exiting one practice area for another; transitioning from the law to a different career; accommodating the demands of raising a family; and slowing down or retiring near the end of one’s career. This article explores the issue through the eyes of two groups of lawyers: the first group transitioned from the day-to-day practice of law to a different job; the second group sought to reduce their hours either to accommodate family needs or as they travelled the long and winding road to retirement.
Although it is easy for me to reflect on the extraordinary blessings my legal career has afforded me—I basically worked for the same law firm and with the same terrific people for thirty years—there were more than a few times when I wanted to run for the hills. One time came when I noticed a small, balding spot in the back of my head due to a nervous habit I had developed of unconsciously twisting and plucking out my hair. With this incontrovertible evidence in hand, I worried that my job was ruining my mental and physical health. Then, my firm’s revenues dropped by 70% over thirty-six months due to sea changes that were occurring in our insurance defense practice. At the time, it appeared like a good opportunity to make a change, but I could imagine no exit strategy that seemed feasible. How would working at another firm change anything? At least I was a partner in my current firm, which allowed me greater control over my life—but which also burdened me with sometimes crushing managerial and financial worries. Also, what skills did I have that would have transferred to a job outside the law? Zero: I had gone straight from college to law school, and practicing law was all I knew.
In the end, I was very lucky. My law partners and I effectively doubled down on our law practice (that is what gamblers do, right?), jumping from the defense bar and into the strange new world of a plaintiff contingency-fee practice. In my twelfth year of practice, at age 36, I realized that the last thing I wanted to do was work for someone else or work with anyone else. I also recognized that I had developed a civil trial skill set that, if refocused, could still bring me joy and, hopefully, reward.
My wife and I adopted austerity measures that I found liberating rather than constraining. Eight years and a lot of good fortune later, things had come full circle. I sat down with my law partner and told him I wanted to map out a five-year exit strategy (which took seven years to implement). Later, I realized there was so much that I enjoyed about practicing law that we agreed to lengthen the exit ramp. I still practice some today, as of counsel with an energetic and skilled group of attorneys in a newly merged law firm—and my little bald spot has (mostly) grown back in. I also teach occasionally at Colorado Law, have written much short fiction (which I am trying to get published), started this column, travel to places I thought I’d never see, and I am working really, really hard on my tennis backhand—the last, always a work in progress (and now a greater challenge with an artificial hip and a reconstructed knee).
The story of every lawyer I spoke to is different; however, the moral of those stories is the same: there are many, many better exit strategies than death. For those who want to “jump to the chase,” I will tell you right up front that all the people I spoke to were happy to have employed their exit strategies. Not a single one of them left the full-time practice of law with any serious regrets.
Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I
Some view practicing law like the Hotel California, a place “you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave,” and where the guests are “all just prisoners here, of [their] own device.”[1] I spoke at length to eight lawyers over the past year, each of whom sought to exit the full-time practice of law, either early on, in the middle of, or near the end of their legal careers. Their reasons for exiting were personal to each, and none was provided a road map on how to accomplish this goal. All enjoyed the practice of law, but each saw the need to develop an exit strategy. By “exit strategy” I mean a change from the status quo, but not necessarily leaving the practice of law entirely—although for many, this is exactly what it entailed. For example, one lawyer with whom I spoke, Sue Borgos, practiced law for ten years, and then transitioned to information technology (IT) for twenty years. She ran her own IT company for the last nine of those twenty years before being hired as a territory manager for a national IT firm. Sue told me that she firmly believes her law degree was not wasted, nor was her time as an attorney, and that she still uses the skills she gained as a lawyer in many different ways on a regular basis.
None of the lawyers I spoke to found a “how to” book on transitioning effectively. For each, it was dynamic process; they learned as they went along. Based on what they shared with me, the keys to their accomplishment included:
1) recognizing that a change was necessary to make their lives more fulfilling;
2) imagining how their world would be after they had made such a change;
3) making and implementing a plan to effect this change; and
4) clearly communicating their desire for change to those around them.
In this Part I, we talk to four lawyers who sought a change of scenery outside the day-to-day practice of law. In Part II, we will talk to four lawyers who sought a reduction in workload on the road to retirement.
[1] From “The Hotel California,” by the Eagles, words by Don Felder, Don Henley, and Glenn Frey (1977). Having grown up in the 1970s and 1980s, I am most familiar with the Eagles’ lyrics; but every generation’s music seems to repeat their themes.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: career transition, hanging your shingle, job satisfaction, law practice management, The Colorado LawyerInherited IRAs in Light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Clark v. Rameker June 23, 2014 By Barbara Cashman Leave a Comment This post originally appeared on Barbara Cashman’s Denver Elder Law blog on June 18, 2014.
Filed Under: Partners, Practice Management Tagged With: banking law, bankruptcy law, Connection Partners, elder law, law practice management, trust & estate lawRecent Colorado Cases Broaden Independent Contractor versus Employee Considerations May 14, 2014 By Michael Schreiner Leave a Comment By Michael Schreiner
Two recent Colorado Supreme Court cases, Industrial Claims Appeals Office v. Softrock Geological Services, Inc., 2014 CO 30, No. 12SC501 (May 12, 2014) and its companion Western Logistics, Inc. v. Industrial Claims Office, 2014 CO 31, No. 12SC911 (May 12, 2014), clarify that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor or employee for purposes of unemployment tax liability is based on the “totality of the circumstances” and not the rigid application of the nine-factor test set forth in C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(c).
Under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), employers are required to pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to employees but not on payments made to independent contractors. A division of the Industrial Claims Appeal Office (ICAO) routinely audits businesses to determine whether a business is classifying its employees appropriately and collecting and submitting the correct amount of tax. Under CESA, an employer can prove that an individual is an independent contractor by demonstrating that (1) the individual is free from the employer’s control and direction, and (2) the individual is “customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession or business related to the service performed.” C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(b).
Alternatively, under C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(c), an employer could submit a written document signed by both the employer and the individual that meets nine conditions. These conditions are that the employer will not do any of the following:
Establish a quality standard for the individual, except that the employer can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the individual as to how the work will be performed;
Provide tools or benefits to the individual, except that the materials and equipment may be supplied;
Dictate the time of performance, except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established;
Pay the individual personally, except for making checks payable to the trade or business name of the individual; and
Combine the employer’s business operations in any way with the individual’s business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct.
In Softrock, ICAO held that an individual was an employee because he provided services only to the employer during the period in question and therefore he did not have an independent trade or business. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that ICAO incorrectly relied on a single factor. Instead, the court of appeals found that ICAO should have determined whether the individual was an employee by considering the nine factors set forth in C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(c).
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that the there is no single factor test and that the nine factors should be considered. However, the supreme court found that the nine factors required to be set forth in a document are not exclusive, but rather a fact-finder should also consider “the dynamics of the relationship between the employer and the putative employee and should not be limited to only considering nine factors.” According to the court, it would also be appropriate to consider such factors as “whether the putative employee maintained an independent business card, listing, address or telephone; had a financial investment such that there was a risk of suffering a loss on the project; used his or her own equipment on the project; set the price for performing the project; employed others to complete the project; and carried liability insurance.”
The court also held that the fact that the putative employee did not provide services to another does not conclusively establish that the individual is an employee. Rather, the determinative issue is “whether the putative employee chose to work for another in the field, regardless of, among other things, the intent of the parties, the number of weekly hours the putative employee actually worked for the employer, or whether the putative employee even sought other work in the field.”
The decision in Softrock means that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of collecting unemployment compensation tax is no longer limited to the application of the nine factors set out in C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(c), or that the alternative single factor test factor test is dispositive. Instead, an employer can present additional information beyond the nine factors to establish the relationship. Further, the fact that an individual provides services only to one business does not conclusively establish that the individual is an employee. Rather, it is appropriate to determine the motivation of the individual and the circumstances surrounding the individual’s actions. In sum, a fact-finder will be required to look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the relationship to determine whether a service provider is an employee or an independent contractor.
Michael Schreiner is a senior litigator at Caplan and Earnest LLC. His practice focuses on employment matters, employment-related litigation, commercial litigation and public education. He previously worked in the Colorado’s attorney general’s office, Colorado State University and the University of Colorado. He may be reached at mschreiner@celaw.com.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: Connection Partners, employee, employment law, independent contractor, law practice managementColorado Supreme Court News: Two New Cases to Decide Seven Issues May 7, 2014 By Stuart Stuller Leave a Comment By Stuart Stuller
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed to review two cases covering seven different issues, six of them raised in one case.
Criminal Sentencing Based on Prior Offenses
The case with one issue, Jarrod Ralph Rutter v. The People of the State of Colorado (No. 13SC523), focuses on Colorado’s habitual criminal sentencing statute under which the sentence of a person convicted of a crime is quadrupled if the person has three prior convictions of a certain class of crimes. Because the multiplier is formulaic, there is a possibility that the resulting sentence could be grossly disproportionate to the underlying criminal conduct, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, such a sentence is subject to a proportionality review to determine whether it is constitutional.
Jarrod Rutter was convicted on charges relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Rutter had three prior convictions for possession and use of controlled substances, exposing him to the habitual criminal sentence enhancement. In the interim, the Colorado General Assembly had reduced possession and use drug crimes to misdemeanors, but if the crimes were felonies at the time of the fourth offense, they still would be counted toward habitual criminal status. With only the manufacture conviction, Rutter would have faced a 24-year sentence. Because of the possession and use offenses, Rutter’s sentence was quadrupled to 96 years.
Rutter argued that while the possession and use convictions could be counted toward the statutory sentence enhancement, the fact that the General Assembly had reduced the possession and use crimes to misdemeanors should be considered in the proportionality inquiry. The court of appeals, in an unpublished opinion by Judge Hawthorne, Judge Taubman concurring, rejected the argument. Judge Graham concurred in part and dissented in part.
The six-issue case, Taxpayers for Public Education et al. v. Douglas County School District et al, (No. 13SC233), arises out of a statutory and constitutional challenge to a private school voucher program funded by the Douglas County School District under which public school funding is used to pay some students’ tuition at private schools, many of which are religious schools.
The statutory challenges are brought under the Public School Finance Act, which regulates the sourcing and distribution of funding for public education. The initial question is whether citizens have the ability, or standing, to raise such a challenge, an issue that the court held turned on whether the Finance Act gives rise to an implied private right of action.
If the Finance Act challenge is permitted, the next question will be whether the voucher program violates the Act by allowing the school district to include students who are enrolled in private schools in the enrolled student count that the district submits to the state for funding.
The remaining four questions focus on constitutional challenges brought under three different provisions of the Colorado Constitution.
One question extends to all three provisions, that is, whether the voucher program is entitled to a presumption of constitutionality that can be rebutted only by proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The first constitutional challenge is that the voucher program violates the constitutional provision that money from the state public education fund shall remain “inviolate and intact.” The trial court’s Judge Michael Martinez determined that state fund money, which comprises 2 percent of the funding received by the district, was diverted to private schools; therefore, this violated the constitution. The court of appeals, in an opinion by Judge Jones with Judge Graham concurring and Judge Bernard dissenting, relied on the constitutional presumption to assume that the voucher program was funded entirely with the remaining 98 percent of the district’s funding.
The second challenge arises from a provision in Colorado’s Bill of Rights that lacks both the brevity of the federal constitution’s religious clauses and the well-developed case law. The pertinent part of the provision states that no person shall be “required to attend or support any ministry, or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent.” The trial court held that the program violated the Bill of Rights by using taxpayer money to support religious instruction. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the federal constitution forbids state constitutional law from turning on inquiries into the extent to which private schools are religious in character.
The final constitutional challenge is anchored to a provision that prohibits public entities from using public funds to support sectarian purposes using terms that go well beyond the usual constitutional proscription of “shall,” that is, the provision states in pertinent part that no public entity “shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund . . . anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose . . . whatsoever.”
Motions to exceed word and page limits are expected.
Stuart Stuller practices appellate, litigation, constitutional, employment discrimination, and education law. He regularly appears before both state and federal appellate courts and has played a substantial role in more than 30 cases that resulted in published decisions. He can be reached at sstuller@celaw.com.
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: Colorado Supreme Court, Connection Partners, constitutional law, criminal law, criminal procedure, education law, law practice management, litigation, tax lawColorado Supreme Court News: Pretrial Discovery Process Under Review April 23, 2014 By Stuart Stuller Leave a Comment By Stuart Stuller
Filed Under: Practice Management Tagged With: Connection Partners, discovery, environmental law, law practice management, litigation, personal injury law, tort law, toxic tortNext Page»Search
Comment Period Open for Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil, Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Criminal ProcedureThe Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has opened the public comment period for several proposed changes to the following rules and forms:
Colorado Court of Appeals: Witness’s Failure to File Tax Returns for Several Years Probative of Character for TruthfulnessThe Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Leaf v. Beihoffer on Thursday, September 11, 2014.
Colorado Court of Appeals: Question of Prospective Harm Inappropriate for Summary Judgment in Dependency and NeglectThe Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of S.N. on Thursday, September 11, 2014.