Lawyer Asks Google to Disguise His Bar Self-discipline Info on State Supreme Court docket’s Internet Website


The Colorado Supreme Court docket website has this merchandise on certainly one of its pages:

Folks v. Travis Shane Uhlenhopp. 19PDJ077. December 5, 2019.

The Presiding Disciplinary Choose accredited the events’ conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Travis Shane Uhlenhopp (lawyer registration quantity 39280) for six months, all to be served and adopted by of a one-year interval of probation, efficient January 9, 2020. The probationary necessities embody finishing an ethics course and complying with all phrases of his deferred judgment and probation.

In February 2019, Uhlenhopp pleaded responsible to a misdemeanor third-degree assault cost in Denver County Court docket stemming from a Could 2018 altercation along with his then-girlfriend. Uhlenhopp struck her a number of instances within the face, inflicting her a number of facial contusions, together with a black eye and a swollen cheek. Uhlenhopp acquired a twelve-month deferred judgment and sentence with probationary circumstances, together with a home violence analysis, home violence remedy periods, and random urinary analyses.

Uhlenhopp additionally didn’t report back to Colorado disciplinary authorities a driving below the affect conviction that occurred in California in March 2017.

By this conduct, Uhlenhopp violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit a prison act that displays adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or health as a lawyer in different respects) and Colo. RPC 251.20(b) (requiring legal professionals to report convictions to disciplinary authorities).

The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.

Certainly, this merchandise is linked to from the lawyer’s lawyer report that comes up in case you search on the courtroom’s Lawyer Search & Disciplinary Historical past web page.

Now apparently the information of the conviction have been sealed by the Denver County Court docket, in accordance with the PDF linked right here. And the lawyer has now requested Google to deindex two internet pages (in order that Google customers will not be capable to see them), together with the one on the Colorado Supreme Court docket website:

NOTICE TYPE: Court docket Order

Clarification of Court docket Order

“Motion Info” (remaining part): Date: 02/04/20: CASE DISMISSED/PLEA WITHDRAWN; Date: 02/07/20: HEARING ON MOTION TO SEAL/MOTION GRANTED/RECORD SEALED BY COURT

… TARGETED URLS:

http://www.noethics.internet/Information/index.php?possibility=com_content&view=article&id=25004:z&catid=137:colorado-attorney-misfits&Itemid=100;

https://coloradosupremecourt.com/pdj/Selections/Uhlenhopp,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2019PDJ077,%2012-05-19.pdf

Here is my pondering: I perceive {that a} trial courtroom has determined to seal its personal information concerning the prison case, which implies these information are not accessible from the courtroom. However the Colorado Supreme Court docket has clearly not determined to seal its information concerning the disciplinary measures in opposition to the defendant; it appears to assume that the general public ought to have the ability to see them. There would have been no First Modification downside with its eradicating the web page from its personal website if it thought that applicable. But it surely saved the web page up.

It is arduous then to see why a lawyer ought to be capable to get Google to cover this data that’s being distributed by the Colorado Supreme Court docket. And it is arduous to see why Google searchers needs to be denied this data that the Colorado Supreme Court docket appears to assume is related to individuals who need to know this specific lawyer’s disciplinary historical past. (To its credit score, Google hasn’t deindexed the web page, regardless of two requests.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *