- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 45,174
- Reaction score
- 463,537
Divided Colorado Supreme Court upholds disbarment of ex-DA Linda Stanley
The Colorado Supreme Court, by 4-2, upheld the rare disbarment of an elected district attorney on Monday, concluding disciplinary officials correctly barred Linda Stanley from practicing law as a result of her inappropriate comments to the media and her improper attempt to remove a judge from a...
www.coloradopolitics.com
9/8/25
The Supreme Court’s majority agreed the disciplinary panel improperly held Stanley accountable for ensuring her subordinate prosecutors lived up to their own professional obligations in the Morphew case. The Colorado Supreme Court, by 4-2, upheld the rare disbarment of an elected district attorney on Monday.
“True, Stanley could have, and perhaps should have, done more to guide the team once she became aware of the magnitude of certain problems,” Hood wrote. “But the highly qualified team she put in place also had an obligation to organize themselves effectively and should have been able to navigate the day-to-day challenges presented even by this complex case.”
The majority otherwise upheld the panel’s decision. It also determined Large need not have recused himself as the presiding disciplinary judge because, in his prior role as an attorney regulator, he prosecuted Stanley for her misconduct as a private-practice attorney.
Hood wrote the situation was a “close call,” but that Stanley’s prior case was not “factually connected” to the current one. Moreover, Large abstained from the portion of the decision where Stanley’s prior discipline was taken into account for sanctioning purposes.
Samour, in dissent, believed Large’s partial recusal was not enough, nor was it even authorized. He stressed that he did not think Large was actually biased against Stanley, nor did Large have an obligation to recuse every time he hears a case involving a lawyer he previously prosecuted in his regulation career.
“We live in a cynical world in which parts of the public are skeptical of judges, which means that the perception of impartiality and fairness is more important than ever — certainly, as important as impartiality and fairness themselves,” Samour wrote. But before Stanley’s “livelihood as an attorney in this state is permanently taken away, she’s entitled to a proceeding conducted in front of a tribunal whose impartiality and fairness cannot reasonably be doubted or even questioned.”
Samour would have ordered a new hearing for Stanley.
Justice Brian D. Boatright did not participate in the decision. As is the Supreme Court’s practice, he did not explain his reason for recusing.
