In the Matter of Laurie A. Booras
Original Proceeding in Discipline Colorado Commission on
Discipline Case No. 18-36
Attorneys for Complainant-Appellee The People of the State of
Colorado: Jessica E. Yates, Regulation Counsel Gregory G.
Sapakoff, Deputy Regulation Counsel Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent-Appellant Laurie A. Booras: Recht
Kornfeld, P.C. David M. Beller Richard K. Kornfeld Denver,
Colorado
ORDER RE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE COLORADO COMMISSION
ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND THE IMPOSITION OF
SANCTIONS
PER
CURIAM.
¶1
In this judicial disciplinary proceeding, we consider the
exceptions of now-former Colorado Court of Appeals Judge
Laurie A. Booras to the Colorado Commission on Judicial
Discipline's (the "Commission's")
recommendation that Judge Booras be removed from office and
that she be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the
Commission in this matter.
¶2
The Commission's recommendation was based on the factual
findings and conclusions of law set forth in the December 12,
2018 Report of the Special Masters in this case. That report
concluded that Judge Booras had violated Canon 1, Rule 1.2,
Canon 3, Rule 3.1, and Canon 3, Rule 3.5 of the Colorado Code
of Judicial Conduct by (1) disclosing confidential
information belonging to the court of appeals (namely, the
vote of a court of appeals division on a case prior to the
issuance of the decision in that case) to an intimate,
non-spousal partner and (2) using inappropriate racial
epithets in communications with that intimate partner,
including a racially derogatory reference to a court of
appeals colleague.
¶3
Judge Booras timely filed exceptions to the Commission's
recommendation, contending that her communications with her
then-intimate partner were protected by the First Amendment
and that the recommendation that she be removed from office
was too severe under the circumstances of this case. In
addition, by letter dated January 2, 2019, Judge Booras
advised the Chief Justice that she was resigning her position
as a Colorado Court of Appeals Judge, effective as of the
close of business on January 31, 2019, although no party
contends that Judge Booras's resignation rendered the
present matter moot.
¶4 Having now considered the record and the briefs of
the parties, we conclude that the Commission properly found
that Judge Booras's communications with her then-intimate
partner were not protected by the First Amendment. We further
conclude that, given Judge Booras's resignation, which
she tendered and which became effective after the Commission
made its recommendation, we need not decide whether Judge
Booras's removal from office was an appropriate sanction.
Rather, we conclude that the appropriate sanction in this
case is the acceptance of Judge Booras's resignation, the
imposition of a public censure, and an order requiring Judge
Booras to pay the Commission's costs in this matter.
I.
Facts and Procedural History
¶5
In 2007, Judge Booras began what would become a ten-year
relationship with a man whom she met online
("J.S."). At the time the two met, J.S. represented
that he was divorced and living in Denver, although Judge
Booras later learned that he was actually married and living
in California. Although the two did not see each other
frequently, they communicated often, and Judge Booras
described their relationship as an intimate one that she had
believed would one day result in marriage. The evidence in
the record tends to show, however, that by the time of the
events at issue, the relationship was deteriorating, and
Judge Booras had good reason to distrust J.S.
¶6
As pertinent here, on February 21, 2017, a division of the
court of appeals heard oral argument in Martinez v.
Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, 2017 COA
37, __P.3d__, rev'd, 2019 CO 3, 433 P.3d 22, a
case principally concerning the extent to which the Colorado
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission is required to consider
public health and the environment in deciding whether to
grant permits for oil and gas development. Judge Booras sat
on that division.
¶7
The next morning, Judge Booras sent J.S. an email stating:
We had an oral argument yesterday re: fracking ban where
there was standing room only and a hundred people in our
overflow video room. The little Mexican is going to write in
favor of the Plaintiffs and it looks like I am dissenting in
favor of the Oil and Gas Commission. You and Sid [a colleague
of J.S.'s] will be so disappointed.
¶8
As pertinent to the issues now before us, "The little
Mexican" was a reference to one of Judge Booras's
colleagues, a Latina who would ultimately write the opinion
for the majority in that case (as she represented in her
email to J.S., Judge Booras would later write the dissent).
Moreover, in sending this email, Judge Booras disclosed to a
third-party the division's vote in the Martinez
case, which vote indisputably was confidential information of
the Colorado Court of Appeals. And this email was not the
first time that Judge Booras had used an inappropriate racial
epithet in communicating with J.S. A year earlier, Judge
Booras had sent an email to J.S. in which she referred to her
ex-husband's new wife, a woman of Navajo descent, as
"the squaw."
¶9
At some point in 2018, J.S.'s wife contacted Judge
Booras, and Judge Booras disclosed her affair with J.S.
Shortly thereafter, J.S. provided to The Denver
Post, then-Chief Judge Alan Loeb of the Colorado Court
of Appeals, then-Governor John Hickenlooper, and, it appears,
the Commission and counsel for the plaintiffs in the
Martinez case several written communications sent to
him by Judge Booras during their ten-year relationship. He
claimed that these communications called into question Judge
Booras's qualifications to serve on the Colorado Court of
Appeals, and he requested an investigation.
¶10
Based on the substance of the written materials that he had
received, Chief Judge Loeb provided the materials to the
Commission, and on March 29, 2018, the Commission filed a
motion with this court, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Colorado
Rules of Judicial Discipline, requesting that Judge Booras be
temporarily suspended with pay pending the disposition of the
judicial disciplinary proceedings that had been commenced
against her. We granted the Commission's motion and
subsequently appointed Chief Judge James F. Hartmann, Chief
Judge Pattie P. Swift, and Justice (Ret.) Gregory J. Hobbs,
Jr. to serve as special masters in this matter.
¶11
On August 17, 2018, the Commission filed a Notice of Formal
Charges and a Statement of Charges against Judge Booras,
alleging that she violated the following provisions of the
Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct: (1) Canon 1, Rule 1.2
(providing that 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"); (2)
Canon 3, Rule 3.1(C) (prohibiting a judge from participating
in "activities that would appear to a reasonable person
to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or
impartiality"); and (3) Canon 3, Rule 3.5 (providing
that "[a] judge shall not intentionally disclose or use
nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any
purpose unrelated to the judge's judicial duties").
These charges were based on Judge Booras's use of racial
epithets ("The little Mexican" and "the
squaw") and on her disclosure to J.S. of the
division's vote in the Martinez case one month
prior to the division's issuance of its opinion in that
case.
¶12
Judge Booras responded to the charges, admitting that she
wrote and sent the emails at issue but asserting that they
constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. She
further contended that she had a reasonable expectation of
privacy ...