March 22, 2013
13 of 65
A Tale of Three Cities
My first job out of law school was as an associate attorney in the office of Carroll, Bradley & Ciancio, P.C. Counting me, there were four lawyers in the firm – the three partners and one lowly associate. John Carroll was very active in politics and municipal law and he (and the firm) was the attorney for the City of Northglenn, Colorado. My first really important assignment was to assist John in litigation to determine who owned the water system serving the citizens of Northglenn.
The water system had been installed in the mid-1950s as subdivisions were developed in what was then an unincorporated area of Adams County. The City of Thornton acquired ownership of the system and used it to supply water to its residents as well as to homes and businesses in the still unincorporated areas. The City of Northglenn incorporated in 1969 and soon claimed the system to the extent that it served residents and businesses within its boundaries. The two cities were unable to negotiate a solution, so litigation was begun. The case was filed in Adams County District Court and was assigned to an excellent judge named Oyer G. Leary.
Oyer is an unusual name, but a great one for a judge. At English common law oyer, which derived from a French term meaning “to hear,” was a pleading by which a party to a lawsuit could have a document read to him in court. This was important because many people were illiterate at the time. The tradition is continued when, for instance, a judge reads the charges to a person who has been accused of a crime.
Despite the fact that he was an excellent judge, our office was concerned because Judge Leary had been the mayor of Thornton when it acquired the water system. Although consideration was given to asking the judge to recuse himself, we decided not to do that; and Judge Leary did not do so on his own motion. Therefore, the trial was held before Judge Leary and he ruled that the water system belonged to Thornton. I cannot say whether his tenure as mayor had any influence, even subconsciously, on his ruling.
In that case, we argued a number of issues that were mostly resolved in favor of Thornton. I felt at the time that the judge was not giving due consideration to the points we were advocating on behalf of Northglenn – but then I was barely out of law school, so what did I know?
Over the years I had many more cases in Judge Leary’s courtroom and found that in each of them he listened carefully to the arguments I made, and that more often than not he agreed with me. Apparently I had developed a good rapport with him during the Northglenn vs. Thornton case.
Shortly after that trial, the partners of Carroll, Bradley & Ciancio decided to split apart to pursue differing professional interests. John Carroll and Rebecca Bradley, who were married to each other, formed a new firm, while Gene Ciancio opened a separate practice. I felt that the Universe was telling me it was time to go my own way well, so I opened my own office. Mine was a general practice with a good deal of litigation, so naturally I had dealings with, and sometimes lawsuits against, various municipalities. The other lawsuit I want to mention here was brought against the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The case began when Fort Collins terminated the employment of three high ranking police officers, and those officers believed that their discharge was improper and wrongful. Another attorney and I represented one of the officers. The litigation was brought in Larimer County District Court, which is the county where Fort Collins is situated. The other officers’ attorneys, who were from Fort Collins, were concerned that all of the district judges in the county had various ties with the City, and that the judge to whom the case had been assigned had ties that were the strongest. Being from Denver, my co-counsel and I had concerns about how such hometown allegiances might affect our client. This time, unlike in the Northglenn case, we asked the judge to recuse himself. He refused. Our motion was denied.
There was to be a jury trial, and we had confidence that we would be able to present the facts to the jurors. Still, it never hurts to have a sympathetic judge conducting the trial. The day before we were to begin, we were informed that our judge was involved in another proceeding that would not be completed in time; so the trial would be presided over by a visiting judge. A visiting judge is judge who is technically retired but is available to assist in situations such as this. When we arrived in court to start the trial, we were pleasantly surprised to find that the case had been assigned to none other than Judge Leary.
Once again, he proved an excellent jurist. He understood the issues, was sympathetic to our legal arguments, allowed the evidence to be presented in a fair manner and instructed the jury properly as to the law to be applied. The jury found in favor of the officers in all respects, awarded the officers substantial monetary damages, and they were reinstated to their former positions on the police force.
Justice prevailed.