Laserfiche WebLink
would except the present situation from application of the general rule that "a judge shall be <br />disqualified in an action in which he ... has been of counsel for = parry ...." C.R.C.P. 97 <br />(emphasis added); see also Hampton v. Hanrahan499 F.Supp. 640, 645 (N.D. Ill. 1980) <br />(declining to distinguish between amicus curiae and regular party on motion to disqualify, noting <br />that "same principles apply. "). The fact is that Justice Hobbs' long time client has made its <br />preferences very clear in this appeal, and in so doing has created the appearance of possible bias <br />or prejudice and a conflict of interest that cannot be avoided except by the requested <br />disqualification. <br />B. Justice Hobbs' prior representation of and association with the Colorado <br />Water Congress. <br />The Colorado Water Congress ( "CWC ") has also filed an extensive amicus brief in <br />support of the State's position. As explained in its motion for amicus status, the CWC is a <br />lobbying organization for certain water users. See CWC's "Motion for Leave to File Brief as <br />Amici Curiae" at 9. Its membership is dominated by entities seeking to use water for irrigation <br />and municipal purposes, and it actively supports or opposes legislation as those interests dictate. <br />Id. <br />Prior to joining the Supreme Court, Justice Hobbs worked as an attorney for the CWC, <br />filing an amicus brief on its behalf in Apblication For Water Rights of Cities of Aurora and <br />Colorado Springs, In Eagle. Lake and Pitkin Counties, 799 P.2d 33 (Colo. 1990). In federal <br />court, Justice Hobbs was the attorney of record for the CWC in Sierra Club v. Yeutter, 911 F.2d <br />1405 (10th Cir. 1990). <br />Golden also notes that Justice Hobbs has a long association with the CWC. He has been <br />a prolific contributor to "Colorado Water Rights," a newsletter published by the CWC, and his <br />Ph0438 <br />