On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, USA Herald reported that the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the disbarment of former 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley, amidst significant disagreement among the justices regarding the impartiality of the disciplinary proceedings. The court’s decision, a 4-2 split, highlighted concerns about judicial ethics and the appearance of impropriety.

The central point of contention revolved around Judge Bryon M. Large, who presided over Stanley’s disbarment hearing. Prior to this, Judge Large, while working as assistant regulation counsel for the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, had investigated Stanley in a separate matter, which resulted in a public censure. Stanley argued that this prior involvement constituted a conflict of interest, requiring Judge Large to recuse himself entirely from the disbarment case. However, Judge Large only recused himself from the portion of the case that pertained to the weight given to her previous censure.

Justice William W. Hood III, leading the majority, acknowledged the situation as a “close call” but asserted that there was insufficient evidence to mandate Judge Large’s complete removal from the case. The majority opinion stated that the other two board members had the authority to decide whether Stanley’s prior sanction should be considered an aggravating factor. Justice Hood noted that Judge Large abstained from the part of the board’s sanction that considered her prior public censure.

Chief Justice Monica M. Marquez and Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. dissented, expressing concerns about the impartiality of the tribunal. Justice Samour emphasized that Stanley was entitled to a three-member tribunal where her entire case would be considered impartially. He argued that a partial recusal created an appearance of impropriety. The dissent argued that allowing Judge Large to remain on the case, even partially, undermined the legitimacy of the proceedings.

The disbarment stemmed from accusations against Stanley, including abuse of authority and the pursuit of an investigation into a judge based on unsubstantiated rumors of domestic abuse. The disciplinary board concluded that Stanley violated defendants’ rights, compromised victims’ access to justice, and eroded public trust. These findings led to the severe consequence of permanent disbarment.

The Supreme Court did reverse one violation related to Stanley’s handling of the Barry Morphew murder prosecution, determining that she did not commit an ethical breach by failing to supervise her trial team more aggressively. The court noted her inexperience with high-profile felonies and suggested her team should have been capable of managing the case’s complexities.

Stanley’s lawyer, Steven L. Jensen, acknowledged the mixed result, agreeing with the court’s recognition that she committed no misconduct in the Morphew case and supporting the dissent’s view that Judge Large should have been fully disqualified.

 

 

Source: USA Herald