KnowYourCOURTS.com


District Judge
District of Colorado

 
"Arrogance and bullying by individual judges expose the judicial branch to the citizens' justifiable contempt. The judiciary can only gain from being able to limit the occasions for such contempt. " McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct, 264 F.3d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

"I do not subscribe to the popular adage that rules are made to be broken." *


* June 22, 2006 Order by Nottingham in Neely v. McGarry (No. 03-cv-00616 (D. Colo. Jun. 22, 2006) slip op. at 12 & fn. 7.

 Click here for a fun, easy quiz just for lawyers!

Match the quotation in the left column that best corresponds to the action or quotation in the right column.  Note that all quotations and actions are verified as actual, unless otherwise noted as, "alleged."

 

“A federal judge can be lazy, lack judicial temperament, mistreat his staff, berate without reason the lawyers and litigants who appear before him, be reprimanded for ethical lapses, verge on or even slide into senility, be continually reversed for elementary legal mistakes, hold under advisement for years cases that could be decided perfectly well in days or weeks, leak confidential information to the press, pursue a nakedly political agenda, and misbehave in other ways that might get even a tenured civil servant or university professor fired; he will retain his office.” - Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Chicago, from Overcoming Law, Harvard U. Press, 1996, p.111

"Some observers say Nottingham never hesitates to get in people's faces. . . That impatience is a trait [that] Nottingham, appointed to the federal bench in 1989 by President George Bush, showed early, says University of Colorado Law School classmate Gary Blum." -The Westword

"[T]he Court is a public institution in this Republic, and it has a duty to promote respect for the law  . . .I believe this Court is in a position to articulate what is meant by respect for the law, so . . . I will address your fellow citizens about what is meant by respect for the law."  - Eddie Nottingham to Joe Nacchio (while the media is taking notes)

Nottingham spends three thousand dollars during just one visit to The Diamond Cabaret strip club. When examined during his own marital dissolution proceeding about how he could have spent so much money, he testifies, "I don't even recall."

"[T]his court prematurely entered an Order accepting the assigned magistrate judge’s recommendation that all claims against all Defendants be dismissed. The Order was premature, because Plaintiff’s time for objecting to the recommendation had not yet expired . . .  [However, t]he bulk of [timely Rule 72 objections, filed in the form of an e-brief, consisting of hyperlinks ] consists of an apparently random mixture of copies of cases and exhibits. It is impossible to follow or make sense of this heap, and any attempt to do so would require abandonment of all other cases."  - Eddie Nottingham to Sean Harrington (pro se nobody)

Eddie Nottingham [allegedly] parks in a van accessible handicap spot in front of a Walgreens.  When a wheelchair-bound woman confronts him by placing her wheelchair behind his Eddie Bauer edition Ford Explorer, he allegedly throws the vehicle into reverse.  When she refuses to budge, he [allegedly] gets out and barks, "Get out of my way."  With cell phone in one hand and a wallet identification in the other, he [allegedly] announces that he is a federal judge and will call the U.S. Marshall Service to have her removed. (Click here).

"Not all judges perform their jobs in an model manner, and the public needs to known [sic.] this . . . Removing intemperate or unfair judges is the public's business. Getting this message to the public often takes bold words". - Denver lawyer Andy Oh-Willeke

Manager of The Diamond Cabaret strip club, Justin Fankell, confirms that Nottingham is a repeat customer. (Click here).

"[T]he Judiciary must relentlessly ensure that federal judges maintain the highest standards of integrity. Federal judges hold a position of public trust, and the public has a right to demand that they adhere to a demanding code of conduct." - 2007 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

According to Nottingham's wife's testimony, Nottingham was browsing a "porn site" (evidently, http://AdultFriendFinder.com or a similar adult swinging site) from the government computer in chambers in the Alfred A. Arraj courthouse, where she confronted him about a related matter. (Click here). (Hint: It is, therefore, understandable why the judge might not have enough time to do his job, such as conducting a de novo review (which includes reading) of a substantive legal  brief, even `though it was a filed as an electronic brief consisting of hyperlinks (for the court's convenience), just as (no doubt) the AdultFriendFinder.com Web site utilizes).

"So you'll stay out of jail if all of these cases are dismissed in time for me to vacate the hearing. Otherwise, the next time you show up, you pack your toothbrush, because you're going to jail."  - Eddie Nottingham to Kay Sieverding (pro se nobody)

"Many of the tired lawyers have no stomach for [Nottingham's 6:30 a.m. punitive hearings], though few will speak on the record, for fear of retribution."  - The Westword  "Nottingham . . . predicted there would be plenty of people willing to talk about him but few, if any, who would allow their names to be used. He was right. Several attorneys said they didn't want to jeopardize future pleadings in front of Nottingham by commenting." - The Rocky Mountain News

"If it is perceived that there is one law for the rich and one law for everybody else, the law will ultimately fall into disrespect”  --Eddie Nottingham, July 27, 2007

"'Everyone who goes before him is nervous,' one of those attorneys said. 'Those who aren't should be.'" - The Rocky Mountain News


Federal judges must avoid all impropriety or appearance of impropriety that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen - Judicial Code of Conduct

Reportedly, Joe Nacchio’s high-profile case received the most careful attention to detail, professionalism, consideration and efficiency by Judge Nottingham (see defense attorney's comment (Nottingham "presided over the Nacchio case with great efficiency and fairness," here).  Nacchio’s attorney filed a sixty-one page brief on the sentencing issues alone, which was given careful consideration.  In stark contrast, in no-name cases like Harrington v. Wilson, Nottingham dismisses the case by speciously claiming to have de novo reviewed the magistrate’s faulty recommendations but, before the time for filing objections had run. (Here). When the average Joe files his timely objections as an electronic brief, Nottingham can’t seem to figure out how to navigate a hyperlinked document (here), despite the fact that he’s a past chairman for the Committee on Technology and Automation. So, he strikes the brief, without reading it. (Click here). The average Joe replaces it with a simple non-hyperlinked version (here) but, Nottingham snubs his nose at the requirement under Rule 72(b) and refuses to read it.


"The biggest problem with your case is that Judge Nottingham hates employment cases and there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s random. Now don’t get me wrong, he’s a fine judge, but he just hates employment cases. That’s why he will try to find any way in the summary judgment briefs to say there’s no material issues and grant summary judgment, and if he doesn’t, he will make it tough at trial, and you won’t win . . . I’m going to look you right in the eye and tell you that you’re gonna lose." - Affidavits of Stephen Phillips & James Carleo (quoting Magistrate Judge Kristin Mix).

A necessary incident of a judge’s duty is that he must hear with an open mind all of the evidence that the parties are entitled and attempt to introduce before reaching a final conclusion. When this precept is violated by predetermination as to the merits of any material issue, "that may justify a party’s fear that an impartial adjudication will be denied. In such circumstances, disqualification of the judge may be warranted and, where judgment has already been rendered, reversal may be appropriate." Flamm, Richard E., Judicial Disqualification (Little, Brown & Co. 1996) at § 15.2.


"One of the meanest, most imperial judges in the history of Colorado," is how one lawyer described this judge in a March 14, 2008 column for The Westword.

For the last nearly twenty years, Edward W. Nottingham has been described by journalists as an "irascible," "impatient," "no-nonsense federal judge with a low tolerance for courtroom shenanigans, unprepared attorneys or unnecessary delays."

He has been described by attorneys as caustic, vitriolic, callous, cantankerous, ill-tempered and disharmonious.  Characteristic of his denigrations of attorneys (as quoted from one example case) is, "You people are unbelievable," his voice growing in volume, he adds, "What I'm dealing with here is a couple of children, and I'll tell you that right to your face."

As for pro se litigants, we’ll never know how he might have treated them, because they rarely have the “privilege” of their day in His Majesty’s court. (click here)

During the 1990s, Nottingham was known for scheduling hearings at 6:30 a.m. for lawyers who had irked him, usually by filing motions that he perceived as frivolous or for having petty disagreements amongst one another. When the attorneys arrived, Nottingham would be "ready to yell at you," one recalled.  According to several authorities, he is the only judge in the state--and possibly the only federal judge in the country--who sets hearings for 6:30 a.m.”  Lawyer Curtis Kennedy described Nottingham's hearings as "punitive" and a "real inconvenience for people who have small children at home."

Apparently, Nottingham suffers from what Max Boot has coined, "gavelitis".  Indeed, he has been described by one journalist as a judge, “who runs his courtroom as only a man with a lifetime appointment can . . . Not only does Nottingham eviscerate lawyers in public, but he forces them to come into court two and a half hours before the lights come on in most other courtrooms.”  He routinely characterizes any case that he doesn’t really want to be bothered with– regardless of legal merit –as “frivolous,” “vexatious,” “harassing,” “spurious,” “scurrilous” or “specious.” Another prominent Colorado appellate attorney conjectured that, “He has a thesaurus of insults that he keeps in chamber for writing orders.” In another characteristic example, he criticized the attorneys in the Nacchio case as, "petulant children in a sandbox."

In 2005, Nottingham ordered a Steamboat Springs woman thrown in jail because she wouldn't stop filing lawsuits he characterized as "frivolous," "abusive" and "gibberish." The woman spent four months in prison before agreeing to drop the suits. Once free, she promptly filed appeals, at least one of which she prevailed (Click here).

In 2003, his office was flooded with angry phone calls after he ruled the popular federal "do not call" list violated telemarketers' free speech rights. The appeals court overturned his ruling but not before radio stations broadcast the phone number of the judge's chambers, urging people to call and complain.

Nottingham grew up on an Eagle County ranch that is now part of Beaver Creek resort before his family moved to Grand Junction, where he graduated from high school. After attending Cornell University, he returned to Colorado for law school.

He was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office for two years before joining Sherman & Howard, Denver's oldest law firm. He became partner there before joining a private firm in Grand Junction, where he was partner until being appointed by the Senior President “read my lips” Bush to the federal bench..

Prior to the recent debauchery scandals, Nottingham openly predicted that there would be plenty of people willing to talk about him but few, if any, who would allow their names to be used. Indeed, several attorneys said they didn't want to jeopardize future pleadings in front of Nottingham by commenting. "Everyone who goes before him is nervous," one of those attorneys said. "Those who aren't should be."

One should wonder, if Nottingham ever was a fair jurist, who could be counted upon to decide every case on the merits and the Rule of Law, why would there have been trepidation amongst lawyers for publicly expressing an opinion of him?

Perhaps that has become a moot question, as Nottingham has brought his reputation and credibility into disgrace through his salacious conduct.  A more relevant question might be why this petty tyrant is still in office.


1 Note that Shaun Boyd misreported that Harrington is an attorney.  Although Harrington is a "legal technologist," and law student, he is not an attorney.

 

 

last updated: 05/15/2008

tipline@KnowYourCOURTS.com