Court Opinion

ID: 9394559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 20:03:02.719115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.989050
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
                2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203

                                 2023 CO 21

                     Supreme Court Case No. 23SA18
                      Original Proceeding in Discipline
         Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline Case No. 22-231
________________________________________________________________________
                      In the Matter of Complainant:

                     The People of the State of Colorado,

                                     and

                                Respondent:

                 Mark D. Thompson, a Former Judge of the
                      Summit County District Court.
________________________________________________________________________
                             Public Censure
                                 en banc
                              May 15, 2023
________________________________________________________________________

Appearing for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline:
Jeffrey M. Walsh, Special Counsel
       Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent:
Recht Kornfeld PC
Abraham V. Hutt
      Denver, Colorado

PER CURIAM

CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT and JUSTICE SAMOUR did not participate.
                              1
¶1     Former Judge Mark D. Thompson, you appear before this Court for

 imposition of discipline based upon violations of the duties of your office as a

 District Court Judge for the Fifth Judicial District. The Colorado Commission on

 Judicial Discipline (“the Commission”) recommends approval of the Stipulation

 for Public Censure (“the Stipulation”), which you and the Commission executed

 on April 24, 2023, pursuant to Rule 37(e) of the Colorado Rules of Judicial

 Discipline (“RJD”). Consistent with the Stipulation, the Commission recommends

 that this Court issue a public censure. Before the entry of the Stipulation, you

 resigned your position as a judge. As part of the Stipulation, you also stipulated

 to the entry of a public censure.

¶2     The Court adopts these recommendations.

                           I. Prior Disciplinary History

¶3     On August 29, 2022, this Court accepted former Judge Thompson’s

 stipulation in case no. 22SA268 to a public censure and a thirty-day unpaid

 suspension from his judicial duties. These sanctions stemmed from former Judge

 Thompson’s guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct in Summit

 County District Court Case No. 21CR264.         Former Judge Thompson’s plea

 reflected his admission to having “recklessly” displayed an AR-15 style assault

 rifle during a dispute with his adult stepson. In the Matter of Thompson, 2022 CO

 39, ¶ 2, 516 P.3d 28, 28–29.
                                         2
¶4       Former Judge Thompson was suspended from his judicial duties from

 October 15, 2022, through November 13, 2022. Id. at ¶ 8, 516 P.3d at 31. In

 conjunction with this judicial disciplinary sanction, former Judge Thompson

 entered a separate stipulation with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney

 Regulation Counsel, in which he received a six-month stayed suspension of his

 law license and one-year of probation, in which he was expected to provide

 updates regarding his progress in anger management treatment. Former Judge

 Thompson’s one-year probationary term began on July 26, 2022.            See Order

 Approving Stipulation to Discipline Under C.R.C.P. 242.19(c), Matter of Thompson,

 22PDJ45.

                                II. Stipulated Facts

¶5       In the April 24, 2023 Stipulation, you and the Commission agreed to the

 following facts:

         1.    In the fall of 2022, [former] Judge Thompson was
               presiding over a personal injury case1 that was set for
               trial at the end of November. In October, counsel for
               the parties jointly informed [former] Judge Thompson
               in writing that they had recently learned the defendant
               had died. Counsel indicated they were unsure how this
               would affect the proceedings and suggested that a stay
               and/or continuance of the trial might be necessary until
               a personal representative for the defendant’s estate had
               been appointed.

 1   Summit County District Court Case No. 20CV30125.
                                          3
2.   On October 14, 2022, [former] Judge Thompson
     responded to the above by issuing an order that read as
     follows:

          The court orders counsel for the parties to confer
          and file an updated status report with the court not
          later than [fourteen] days from the date of this
          order. A suggestion of death should be filed.
          Additionally, the case may only proceed against the
          estate. The court does not continue trial at this time
          and will await further information from the parties.

3.   On October 27, 2022, the defendant’s counsel filed the
     suggestion of death. The parties did not file an updated
     status report as directed. The parties did not file all of
     the previously ordered pretrial filings due on
     November 1, 2022. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a proposed
     Joint Trial Management Order on November 9, 2022,
     but the parties took no action to substitute the estate of
     the deceased defendant as required.

4.   On November 15, 2022 (i.e.[,] two days after [former]
     Judge Thompson returned from his unpaid suspension),
     he presided over a pre-trial readiness conference in the
     above case. When [former] Judge Thompson learned
     (a) that plaintiff’s counsel didn’t know how to
     substitute the defendant’s estate for the defendant, and
     (b) that neither counsel had complied with an earlier
     pre-trial order to submit witness lists, . . . exhibit lists,
     proposed jury instructions, and a joint case
     management certificate, he lost his temper on the
     record. He berated counsel in a tone that was rude,
     condescending, and mocking.

5.   During that hearing, [former] Judge Thompson
     expressed, among other things, the following:

     a.     That the parties had waived their right to jury by
            failing to file timely pretrial jury instructions and
                                    4
     that he was imposing sanctions excluding
     evidence.

b.   That he was dismissing the case with prejudice
     because of the parties’ failure to comply with his
     pre-trial orders.

c.   That he was inclined to pursue an indirect
     contempt citation against the attorneys and to
     request that the attorneys serve a week in jail as a
     sanction.

d.   That he was prohibiting the parties from making
     additional filings to mitigate the evidentiary
     sanctions imposed under the trial management
     order.

e.   That he was grieving both of the attorneys to the
     Colorado Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney
     Regulation Counsel.

f.   That, even though the jury trial was now vacated,
     he would not vacate the jury call, thus forcing up
     to 80 prospective jurors to come to court so that
     [former] Judge Thompson could humiliate the
     lawyers in front of the prospective jurors.
     Specifically, [former] Judge Thompson told both
     counsel that they would be required to tell the
     prospective jurors (a) their names, (b) that they
     were not prepared for trial because of a complete
     failure to follow court orders, and (c) how proud
     they were of themselves for wasting the jury’s
     time by forcing the jurors to come to court for a
     trial that counsel were not ready for.

g.   [Former] Judge Thompson threatened counsel
     that if they did not appear to say these things to
     the prospective jurors, he would issue bench
     warrants for their arrest. He further threatened
     that if counsel did not say exactly what he told
                            5
                    them to say, he would immediately find them in
                    direct contempt of court, remand them to jail, and
                    that it would be a “heck of a long time before they
                    saw the light of day.”

        6.    On November 16, 2022, one day after the above
              referenced hearing and three days after returning to the
              bench from his suspension, [former] Judge Thompson
              did two things relevant to this proceeding.

              a.    First, he issued sua sponte a written order
                    relieving counsel of their obligation to appear
                    before a panel of jurors. [Former] Judge
                    Thompson wrote that the public interest in
                    avoiding the inconvenience to prospective jurors
                    of summoning them to court for a trial that could
                    not proceed outweighed the interest in holding
                    counsel responsible for failure to comply with the
                    court’s pre-trial orders. But [former] Judge
                    Thompson left all other evidentiary sanctions in
                    place.

              b.    Second, [former] Judge Thompson held a
                    telephone conference in a different case with
                    different parties, which was a domestic relations
                    case.2 When a disagreement arose between the
                    husband and wife related to the parenting plan,
                    [former] Judge Thompson again acted with
                    intemperance by insulting the parties.
                    Specifically, he said, “The fact that these parties
                    can’t come up with a parenting plan reflects to
                    me that neither of them are fit parents. And I
                    have deep, deep concerns that we’re just going to
                    do this litigation dance for the next however
                    many years, decades, it takes for these kids to get

2   Lake County District Court Case No. 22DR30000.
                                          6
                   out of high school and get as far away from these
                   two parents as they possibly can, which is, God-
                   willing, what they’ll be able to do.”

      7.     Two days later, on November 18, 2022, [former] Judge
             Thompson issued sua sponte a written order in the
             above referenced personal injury case stating that he
             would reconsider his sanctions if the parties promptly
             took action to substitute the estate and obtain service on
             the personal representative.

      8.     Two weeks later, on December 5, 2022, [former] Judge
             Thompson issued another order in the personal injury
             case.

             a.    First, [former] Judge Thompson granted the
                   parties’ motions to reconsider and vacated his
                   previously imposed sanctions because counsel
                   had by then substituted the estate and obtained
                   service on the personal representative. [Former]
                   Judge Thompson subsequently reset the trial in
                   April of 2023.

             b.    Second, while acknowledging “disappointment”
                   in his own “intemperance,” [former] Judge
                   Thompson denied plaintiff’s motion to recuse
                   himself from the case based on his treatment of
                   counsel, as discussed above.

      9.     In lieu of the Commission seeking his temporary
             suspension according to Colo. RJD 34(a), [former] Judge
             Thompson resigned from office, effective January 13,
             2023.

                  III. Former Judge Thompson’s Response

¶6    In the Stipulation, former Judge Thompson provided the following

 response:

                                         7
1.   [Former] Judge Thompson takes full responsibility for
     his conduct by agreeing to this Stipulation. More
     specifically, [former] Judge Thompson apologizes for
     mismanaging his anger and failing to maintain the
     professional demeanor expected of a judge.

2.   [Former] Judge Thompson submits that counsels’
     noncompliance with court orders in the above
     referenced personal injury case, and their neglect of the
     case and of their clients, was significantly disrespectful
     to the court, the clients, the prospective jurors, and the
     court system. He submits that it would have been
     appropriate for him to be stern and scolding for their
     failure to abide by his orders and to suggest that they
     should face consequences personally for that
     disrespectful behavior which was harmful to the court,
     the clients, and the legal system. But he acknowledges
     that all of those things could and should have been
     done in a manner that was not disrespectful, rude, or
     mocking or in a way that required him very quickly to
     reverse his own rulings and orders. He submits that his
     anger was not the result of any animus or bias against
     the lawyers personally or their legal positions, but their
     failure to abide by appropriate trial management orders
     and the disrespect their neglect of the case
     demonstrated toward their clients and the judicial
     system.

3.   The Commission disagrees that these described circumstances in
     any way excuse [former] Judge Thompson’s conduct.

4.   Given the above, [former] Judge Thompson
     acknowledges that he has not fully resolved concerns
     raised in his prior disciplinary proceedings that relate to
     his ability to manage anger and to maintain a respectful
     demeanor. Moreover, [former] Judge Thompson admits
     that his demeanor towards counsel in Case
     No. 20CV30125 was generally inappropriate and
     contrary to the requirements of the Colorado Code of
     Judicial Conduct, as detailed below.
                                   8
                       IV. Stipulated Code Violations

¶7   The parties further stipulate as follows:

        Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rule 1.1

     1. Canon Rule 1.1(A) provides, in relevant part: “A judge
        shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial
        Conduct.”

     2. As described below, [former] Judge Thompson
        acknowledges his non-compliance with Canon Rules 1.2,
        2.8, and 2.11, which establishes that he violated Canon
        Rule 1.1.

        Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rule 1.2

     3. Canon Rule 1.2 provides: “A judge shall act at all times in a
        manner that promotes public confidence in the
        independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,
        and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
        impropriety.”

     4. Comment 5 to Rule 1.2 states in relevant part, “The test for
        appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would
        create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge
        violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects
        adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament,
        or fitness to serve as a judge” (emphasis added).

     5. [Former] Judge Thompson acknowledges that his problems
        with temperament created an appearance of impropriety in
        violation of Canon Rule 1.2.

        Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rule 2.8

     6. Canon Rule 2.8(B) provides, in relevant part: “A judge
        shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants,
        jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and
                                         9
          others with whom the judge deals in an official
          capacity . . . .”

       7. [Former] Judge Thompson acknowledges that his words
          and conduct violated Canon Rule 2.8.

          Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rule 2.11

       8. Canon Rule 2.11(A)(1) provides, in relevant part: “A judge
          shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
          which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
          questioned, including but not limited to the following
          circumstances: The judge has a personal bias or prejudice
          concerning a party or a party’s lawyer . . . .”

       9. [Former] Judge Thompson admits that his conduct created the
          appearance of personal animus against counsel in the personal injury
          case thereby constituting a violation of Canon Rule 2.11(A)(1).

               V. Stipulated Resolution of Formal Proceedings
¶8     RJD 37(e), titled “Stipulated Resolution of Formal Proceedings,” allows the

 Commission to file a “stipulated resolution” as a recommendation to this Court in

 a disciplinary proceeding.    In filing such a stipulation, the Commission has

 authority to recommend, among other possible sanctions, that this Court “censure

 the Judge publicly . . . by written order.” RJD 36(e); accord Colo. Const. art. VI,

 § 23(3)(f). Under RJD 40, after considering the evidence and the law, this Court is

 required to issue a decision concerning the Commission’s recommendations. If

 the Commission recommends adoption of a stipulated resolution, “the Court shall

 order it to become effective and issue any sanction provided in the stipulated

                                         10
  resolution, unless the Court determines that its terms do not comply with Rule

  37(e) or are not supported by the record of proceedings.” RJD 40.

¶9      By the Stipulation, former Judge Thompson waives his rights to a hearing

  in formal proceedings and review by this Court as provided according to RJD 37(e)

  and RJD 40. Given former Judge Thompson’s cooperation and agreement to the

  Stipulation, the parties agreed that the Commission shall not seek an assessment

  of costs and fees, as otherwise allowed according to RJD 36(g). This stipulated

  resolution, the sanctions imposed by this Court, and the record of proceedings

  shall become public on filing.

¶ 10    Upon consideration of the law, the evidence, the record of the proceedings,

  the Stipulation, and the Commission’s recommendation, and being sufficiently

  advised in the premises, this Court concludes that the terms of the Stipulation

  comply with RJD 37(e) and are supported by the record of the proceedings.

  Therefore, this Court orders the Stipulation to become effective and issues the

  agreed-upon sanctions.

¶ 11    This Court hereby publicly censures you, former Judge Mark D. Thompson,

  for violating Code of Judicial Conduct Canon Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.8, and 2.11.

                                          11