On Thursday, May 17, 2012, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) at the University of Denver announced that its Executive Director, Rebecca Love Kourlis, has been named the recipient of the prestigious 2012 John Marshall Award, presented by the American Bar Association Justice Center. Kourlis will formally accept the award in Chicago in August.

The ABA Justice Center established the John Marshall Award to recognize individuals who are dedicated to the improvement of the administration of justice. Recipients are chosen based on their work to promote justice system reform and public awareness about the justice system. Previous recipients include Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (AZ), Justice Anthony Kennedy (U. S. Supreme Court), Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye (NY), Senator Howell Heflin (AL), and Governor Tom Ridge (PA).

Kourlis is a graduate of Stanford University and Stanford University School of Law. She served as a trial court judge for seven years and was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court in 1995 where she served there for elevent years. She opened IAALS in 2006.

IAALS is a national, independent research center at the University of Denver dedicated to continuous improvement of the civil justice system. IAALS envisions a civil justice system that is accessible, efficient and accountable to the litigants it was designed to serve.

Kourlis has received numerous honors, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Legal Reform Organization of the Year Award (2007) and the ABA Judicial Division Robert B. Yegge Award for Outstanding Contribution in the Field of Judicial Administration (2009). She is a Fellow of the Colorado Bar and American Bar Foundations. In 2010, she and husband Tom were named Citizens of the West by the National Western Stock Show.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has never shied away from tackling the tough issues surrounding the powerful role of public prosecutors in the United States. In 2008, he published a book, No Higher Calling, No Greater Responsibility, that drew on his personal experiences as a local, state, and federal prosecutor, with insights on how to make the system better for everyone involved. The book also explored some of the more controversial calls for reform, including drug legalization. Written in straightforward terms, it provides a fascinating look at the intricacies of crime and punishment.

On May 22, 2012, Suthers will speak at a special 1-hour Literary Lawyers CLE presentation on the issues in his book and thoughts on recent cases and experiences. He will not only speak to the immense and unique power that prosecutors have, but the effects on the victims, perpetrators, and the public. In addition, prosecution ethics will be discussed, including zealous prosecution and the effects of advancing technology.

Public scrutiny has also increasingly come into play for prosecutors, as high-profile cases like the Hayman fire are played out in the press and public arena. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear Attorney General Suthers’ insights first hand. All attendees will also receive a copy of his book.

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and thirty-three unpublished opinions for the week of May 13, 2012.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

Lemus v. Wyoming Dep’t of Corrs.

United States v. Salazar-Orozco

Chavez v. Navajo Nation Tribal Courts

Beyer v. Camex Equipment Sales and Rentals, Inc.

Huggins v. SCOTUS

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

I have often argued that that law schools do little to prepare graduates for dealing with the business of law — finance, practice management, client relations — that determines practice success. That puts the onus on new lawyers to do the preparation themselves, especially if they are starting a practice on their own.

Solo or small-firm lawyers need all the traits of an entrepreneur: motivation, acceptance of risk, resiliency, commitment, persistence. You may think you have these traits in abundance, but what do they really mean on a personal level if you want to run your own firm?

A new resource enables lawyers to get some definitive answers for themselves. The U.S. Small Business Administration now offers a self-test, aimed at anyone interested in starting a small business.

The test will prompt you with questions and assist you in evaluating skills, characteristics and experience as they relate to your potential as an entrepreneur. Responses are scored automatically to create an assessment profile for how prepared you are to run your own business. And make no mistake: A law firm is a business.

These are just some of the key questions; consider for a moment how they relate to your own personal knowledge and inclinations:

• Do you have support for your business from family and friends?
• Have you ever taken a course or seminar designed to teach you how to start and manage a small business?
• Have you discussed your business idea, business plan or proposed business with a business coach or counselor?
• Do you have enough confidence in yourself and your abilities to sustain yourself in business if or when things get tough?
• Are you prepared, if needed, to temporarily lower your standard of living until your business is firmly established?
• Do you have a business plan for the business you are planning to start?
• Do you know if your business will require a special license or permit and how to obtain it?
• Do you know where to find demographic data and information about your customers?
• Do you know how to compute the financial “break-even point” for your business?

If there is one running theme here, it’s that the lawyer starting a firm must make a commitment to success. Expressing success in relative terms such as “more revenue” or “greater satisfaction” sets a subjective standard that is difficult to achieve.

The truly successful person wants and needs a target. To successfully start a firm, know what you want to do, who you want to be and how you will provide your clients with value.

Ask a coach or other independent person with knowledge of the profession, its requirements and the requisite skills of entrepreneurship. Ask this person to react to your analysis of your strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Although such an analysis will be at least somewhat subjective, it is essential to help you understand if you have what it takes to start your own firm.

“Spark the Discussion” is a monthly Legal Connection column highlighting the hottest trends in the emerging field of medical marijuana law. This column is brought to you by Vicente Sederberg, LLC, a full-service, community-focused medical marijuana law firm.

By Brian Vicente, Esq. and Rachelle Yeung

In the final weeks of the Colorado legislative session, while House Democrats and Republicans were fiercely battling over same-sex civil unions, a landmark piece of drug policy reform legislation snuck through the Legislature nearly-unopposed. The “Hemp Bill,” or HB 12-1099, sets up the framework for the study and use of industrial hemp, and seeks to use this “taboo” crop to clean up contaminated soil through a process called phytoremediation.

The passage of the Hemp Bill is a victory in a 70-year long battle against the prohibition of marijuana and a turning point towards a more sensible approach to drug policy. The regulation of marijuana is a topic of increasing importance to Colorado voters because of Amendment 64, the statewide ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, which will be voted on in November. Amendment 64 would also make Colorado the first state in the nation to regulate the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.

Historically, hemp production was encouraged in the United States – from being one of the most important crops in colonial America to being promoted by the federal government in a World War II film called “Hemp for Victory.” However, growing hemp has been outlawed since the Controlled Substances Act, because of its close association with marijuana.

Though it shares the same genus (“Cannabis sativa L.”) as its better-known cousin, industrial hemp is distinguished from marijuana by its low concentration of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinols, or THC. Industrial hemp contains no more than three-tenths of a percent of THC.

Several factors make Colorado a particularly compelling candidate for hemp-based phytoremediation. Extensive mining throughout the state has left vast tracts of land contaminated with toxic waste. Phytoremediation would remove those toxins from the ground, which could then be used for agriculture and cattle grazing which are cornerstones of the state’s economy. Finally, a plant requiring very little water to grow – like hemp – is a necessity in a water-constrained state like Colorado.

The use of industrial hemp in phytoremediation is not entirely novel. In 1986, the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant caused severe radioactive contamination in areas up to 100 km away. Soil in that area became saturated with toxic waste and heavy-metals which rendered it useless for agriculture. In 1998, a group called PHYTOTECH began growing hemp in the area to decontaminate the soil and, according to Slavik Dushenkov, a research scientist with the company, “Hemp prov[ed] to be one of the best phytoremediative plants we have been able to find.”

Activists hope that phytoremediation is just the introduction of industrial hemp into mainstream use. Hemp is cheap and easy to grow, requiring few pesticides and no herbicides. It can be used in textiles, construction materials, paper products, and even body care products. Hemp seed is considered a “superfood” – a good source of protein and dietary fiber, high in B-vitamins and essential omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Hemp can even be reduced to ethanol and biofuel, a boon to our petroleum-addicted society. Some activists go so far as calling hemp “the plant that could save the world.”

A similar bill was introduced in the Colorado Legislature in 1994 by then-Senator Loyd Casey, but received only a single, sad vote before disappearing into history. If Governor Hickenlooper gives this year’s HB-1099 his stamp of approval – and given its support in the Legislature, there is no reason he would not – Colorado could become the first state in the nation to grow industrial hemp since the 1930s.

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a three-part series of job search and career transition articles. Click here to view part one. Click here to view part two.

Whenever we get deep into something we judge as not going well, we start to panic. “Quit while you can,” the voice of fear says, “because the odds are getting worse by the minute. You’re going to fail, you’re going to fail, you’re going to fail . . . .”

That’s a lie. Bookmakers set odds beforehand. The odds don’t change once the game is on. Besides, we’re playing to win, no matter what the odds.

It’s a good thing that sometimes those fearful warnings fall on deaf ears. Otherwise we’d never get to make heroes out of people who persevered and triumphed even though everyone told them to give up. We love those stories, and ours could be one of them. How about we think about that the next time we’re inclined to pronounce a failure judgment on ourselves?

With some practice, we’ll start to believe we can actually give up on failure. Which means we can also give up on quitting, too. If we can’t fail, then why quit? It took guts to get started, and it took more to keep going, so why stop now? The story’s just getting good!

Besides, hedging bets is for professional investors and gamblers, not for people trying to make their dreams and visions and big ideas a reality.

We reach for the word failure when we get to the point where we want to scream to anyone who will listen that we’ve given it our all and the whole thing isn’t working so why bother anymore. But the truth is, no we haven’t. Determination defies endurance. Just because we’re broke, lonely, worn out, and discouraged doesn’t mean we’ve got nothing left. There’s always more.

Maybe we cling to the possibility of failure because that lets us hold a little something in reserve when we try to do the impossible. That strategy appeals to our fearful side, but ironically and perversely, the thing we’re holding back might be the difference between getting or not getting what we want.

Besides, what are we holding it back for anyway? So we can keep open the opportunity to return to whatever we wanted to leave behind in the first place?

No thanks. Life is tricky enough without living with one hand tied behind our back. I say we give up on failure instead. And while we’re at it, let’s give up on quitting, too.

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Concerning the Revised Abandonment List of Water Rights in Water Division 2 and Concerning the Protest of Thorsteinson in Pueblo County: Harrison v. Simpson, State Engineer; Concerning the Application for Change of Water Right of Harrison, Personal Representative: Harrison v. St. Charles Mesa Water District on May 14, 2012.

Water Law—Change of Diversion Point—Stipulation—Unconstitutional Taking—Abandonment of Right.

John Harrison appealed directly to the Supreme Court from adverse rulings of the Water Court for Water Division No. 2 in two separate cases. With regard to Harrison’s Application for a Change of Water Right, the water court granted the State Engineers’ motion to dismiss at the close of Harrison’s case. The water court found that he was required, but failed, to establish the historic use of the right, to which he sought a change in the point of diversion. With regard to Harrison’s protest to the inclusion of the interests he claimed in the Mexican Ditch on the Division Engineer’s decennial abandonment list, the water court granted the Engineer’s motion for abandonment, as a stipulated remedy for Harrison’s failure to succeed in his change application.

The Court affirmed the water court’s dismissal of Harrison’s application, holding that (1) Harrison neither proved historic use of the right for which he sought a change nor was excepted from the requirement that he do so as a precondition of changing its point of diversion, and (2) denying a change of water right for failing to prove the historic use of the right does not amount to an unconstitutional taking of property. The Court reversed the water court’s order granting the Engineers’ motion for abandonment, because Harrison did not stipulate to an order of abandonment as the consequence of failing to succeed in his change application, but only as the consequence of failing to timely file an application reflecting historic use, a condition with which he complied.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Denying Change of Water Right for Failing to Prove Historic Use Does Not Amount to Unconstitutional Taking of Property

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Angel on May 14, 2012.

Rules of Criminal Procedure—Discovery—Prosecutorial Work Product.

The Supreme Court determined that Crim.P. 16(I)(e)(1) protects against the disclosure of a prosecutor’s opinion work product, and made the rule absolute. The Court reversed the district court’s discovery order and held that the prosecutorial work product exception under Crim.P. 16(I)(e)(1) protects from compelled disclosure all opinion work product prepared by the prosecution in anticipation of any criminal prosecution. The Court remanded the case to the district court to determine, through an in camera, ex parte review, whether the contested materials contain protected prosecutorial opinion work product.

Summary and full case available here.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Handley on Tuesday, May 15, 2012.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. Petitioner appeals his sentence, following revocation of his supervised release for drug use and “imposition of a new term of incarceration of twelve months and supervised release of four years, on grounds his supervised release exceeds the amount allowed by law.” The Court determined that “because the maximum allowable term of supervised release is life . . . , the district court could impose a four-year term of supervised release following [Petitioner]’s incarceration. Moreover, the district court’s imposition of four years of supervised release in this case is both ‘reasoned and reasonable’ given [Petitioner]’s failure to deal with his drug issues, obvious need for mental health and substance abuse treatment, and multiple violations of the conditions of his prior terms of supervised release.”