Trine | TRINE’S TALES

The Crowley Prison Riot and the Evils of
the Private Prison System
By Bill Trine, Esq.

F

ollowing the prison riot at the Crowley County Correctional
Facility (CCCF) in July, 2004, I filed consolidated lawsuits1
for more than 200 inmates who did not participate in the riot,
but were innocent victims of the gross negligence of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private
“for profit” operator of prisons in the United States. After
eight years of litigation and facing a 25-week jury trial, CCA
finally began offering individual settlements to our remaining
198 clients.2 When the offers, after lengthy negotiations, were
in an amount that I could recommend, we began settling each
individual case and the court vacated the trial set for March 11,
2013. The court dismissed each client’s case as it settled.3

ing prisoners as merchandise to be transferred in large groups
from one prison to another for greater profits. They often
made transfers to isolated rural areas of the nation on short
notice, separating inmates from friends, family and any
support system. The evidence produced in these lawsuits
demonstrated that it was this willful and wanton conduct by
CCA that caused the initial disturbance, which CCA then
permitted to escalate into a four-hour prison-wide riot when
the CCA staff quickly abandoned the recreation yards and
housing units at the first sign of trouble. So here is the
Crowley story that demonstrates why government should
not permit private companies to use our prison system for
profit, rather than protecting the safety, welfare and rehabilitation of its inhabitants.

Many of you followed this litigation with some interest perhaps because of its length and complexity - and I am now
free to divulge some of the evils inherent in the private prison The Crowley Prison Riot
industry as revealed in the formal pre-trial discovery. I can
The Location
do so because I refused to enter into a confidentiality agreeTo increase profits, private prison companies try to locate
ment as a condition of settlement. But before publicizing
their prisons in rural areas where there is a cheap labor market,
those evils, let me first give you a capsule summary of the
a lower tax base, and a local government that will become
eight years of this epic litigation.
dependent on this new industry and support its growth. CCCF
We were in the appellate courts five times resulting in
was therefore ideal. It is isolated about 50 miles east of Pueblo
two published opinions4; defended the depositions of 126
in
a rural county, surrounded by sparse prairie grassland coninmate/clients5; took the depositions of 30 CCA employees;
ditions, some ranch land and a few farms. The county is
and reviewed over 150,000 pages of documents produced
also home to a state operated prison. These two prisons
by CCA, the Colorado Department of Corrections and the
constitute the only “industry” in Crowley County. The 2010
Inspector General. Multiple motions were filed, including
census showed 5,518 county residents of which 2,682
13 motions in limini. Just weeks before the scheduled trial,
were prisoners, giving Crowley County the highest
the court dismissed CCA’s frivolous affirmative defenses6
percentage of prisoners of any county in the U.S. There
and struck the 483 designated nonparties7. The court had
are only four small towns in the county, which includes the
earlier dismissed CCA’s counterclaims and ruled that the
county seat, Ordway, with a population of 1,080, a gas station,
evidence supported plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages.
one small restaurant, and no overnight lodging. These demoSo what did this entire discovery reveal of the evils
graphics are relevant when considering the importance of
inherent in permitting private “for profit” corporations to
family contact and visitation to successful rehabilitation.
operate our prisons? It clearly demonstrated that CCA’s
The First Riot
quest for greater profits caused the Crowley prison riot
because they used the cost saving practice of understaffing
The first riot occurred at CCCF in 1999 when another
prisons with untrained and poorly paid personnel and treat- private prison company operated it.8 That company
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association

Trial Talk

April/May 2013

45

TRINE’S TALES | Trine
arranged to have a large group of
medium security prisoners transported
from the state of Washington to CCCF
in order to fill vacant beds and increase
profits. The transfer interrupted the
Washington inmates’ rehabilitation and
educational programs and jobs, interfered
with family visitation and contact with
lawyers, and placed them in an isolated
environment. Soon after the transfer, a
small group of Washington inmates started a disturbance, which became a riot
with destruction of property. Following
the riot, the Washington inmates were
transferred back to their home state.

The Second Riot and CCA’s
Willful and Wanton Conduct
CCA then took over the management
and operation of CCCF on January 19,
2003, and sent a CCA employee, Richard
Selman, to function as the Chief of
Security. He arrived in April 2003 and
immediately recognized the need for
changes that were necessary to improve
security. At that time, CCCF had four
housing units and two recreation yards,
east and west, and it released all inmates
at the same time for recreation. They
could congregate and wander freely
between yards. So in the summer and
fall of 2003, Selman recommended
significant and costly changes to improve security including fencing around
both yards to control inmate movement
“versus the whole yard being an open
style compound where inmates could
be everywhere.” He recommended
that they enclose an observation tower
and staff it 24 hours a day; and schedule
shifts for use of the recreation yards
by inmates.9
However, CCA’s home office ignored
these recommendations as it was planning a substantial expansion of the prison
to increase its profitability. It planned
to add two new units to house several
hundred new inmates. Construction
started in the fall of 2003, and when it

46

April/May 2013

was nearly complete in the spring of
2004, CCA arranged to have 300 prisoners from Washington again transferred
to CCCF to fill it. The plans for this
transfer of prisoners caused Warden
Leland Crouse concern because the
entire prison population could move
freely from one recreation yard to the
other. So he developed a plan that he
discussed with his regional supervisor
to control movement by establishing a
recreation schedule so that “only one
pod or one unit would have access to
one part of the yard at a time.”10 These
plans were in place, but they had not
implemented them before the transfer
of Washington inmates.

carried him to segregation as hundreds
of inmates watched. Some angry Washington inmates, who thought they used
excessive force, planned a confrontation
that evening when both yards would be
open for recreation to all 1100 inmates.

As word of this plan spread, many
inmates, concerned for their own safety,
voiced their fears to COs and warned
them of the plans. The COs notified
their superiors and voiced their own
concerns. The captain in command
called a meeting of the COs that evening, before releasing the inmates, to
discuss the threats. During that meeting,
several COs opined that they should
not release inmates for fear of a riot.
Upon learning of the planned transfer, They felt the prison should remain in
CCCF inmates and correctional officers lockdown until tempers cooled and
(CO) who had been present during the
they dealt with inmates grievances.
1999 riot voiced their concern and fear of The captain overruled them and simply
another riot should the transfer of Wash- cautioned the COs to be careful when
ington inmates again take place. CCA’s they patrolled the yards.
management in its home office in Nashville,
They released all inmates for yard
Tennessee ignored the objections and
recreation in both yards, despite the
concerns, and the first 100 inmates
advance warnings. A group of Washarrived in late June 2004, followed by
ington inmates in the west yard
a second group two weeks later.
immediately confronted the two yard
Upon arrival, the Washington inmates COs, demanding to see the warden to
learned that there would be no conjugal voice their grievance over the morning
visits with their wives, no smoking
incident. When the COs refused, groups
and no Washington law library, all of of inmates began forming in that yard.
which were available to them in Wash- The COs panicked and ran from the
ington prisons. Instead, CCCF offered yard, as did the two COs in the east
isolation with limited programs and jobs. yard. Then the two COs in each of the
Nearly all inmates were from poor Wash- five housing units abandoned those
ington families who would be unable to units, as the disturbance became a fulltravel to Colorado for visitation. They blown riot.
could not afford frequent long distance
Realizing that the skeleton crew of
telephone charges at the elevated rates
COs
on duty had essentially abandoned
prisoners pay.11 They complained, and
the prison, rioters went on a rampage some threatened to riot. Although the
setting fires, breaking into housing
threats of a riot worried other inmates
units, destroying property, looking for
and some COs, CCA management
sex offenders and creating chaos. The
ignored them as tension mounted.
CCCF Operations Manager, did not
Then, on the morning of July 20,
have adequate staff and munitions to
2004, there was a visible show of force control the initial disturbance and dewhen COs restrained an 18-year-old
veloping riot, and had to wait for three
Washington inmate in the yard and
hours for special operations response
Trial Talk

Colorado Trial Lawyers Association

Trine | TRINE’S TALES
teams (S.O.R.T.) to arrive from distant
facilities in order to retake control of
the prison. In taking control, CCA indiscriminately treated all inmates as
participants in the riot, even those who
had been in their cells, the medical ward
or the library throughout the riot.

hours. Or those inmates who were tear
gassed at close range while lying in the
yard, cuffed, and being told, “That’s
what you get for rioting.” Some inmates
were under treatment following major
surgery and begged not to be re-injured
and their complaints ignored. Some had
a serious asthma condition and were
As a result, the plaintiffs (none of
denied use of their inhalers. Some were
whom participated in the riot) sustained
under treatment for mental illness and
physical and psychological injuries in
their medications discontinued. Some
varying degrees. Nearly every plaintiff
were severely traumatized and have had
suffered from smoke and gas inhalation,
recurring nightmares of being trapped
from fear of injury or death, from exand burned alive, or beaten to death by
cruciating pain resulting from the
crazy inmates.
punishment inflicted on all inmates
once the riot was under control and
All of this because CCA transferred
from months of lockdown. Most plain- a large group of unhappy Washington
tiffs, after guards cuffed them and placed inmates to Colorado to fill newly built
them in the yard, had to urinate in their units and increase profits, then ignored
clothing and wear that clothing for many their complaints and the advance notice
hours or even days. Many had to show- of a planned disturbance — a disturbance
er at gunpoint, without curtains, in front that was not controlled because of CCA’s
of female guards who made fun of them cost saving practice of understaffing its
and videotaped them in the nude. Many prisons with untrained personnel.12
spent time in overcrowded cells with
Lengthy investigations conducted by the
no bedding, mattresses or hygiene pro- Colorado Department of Corrections
ducts (even toilet paper) for days. Many (DOC), and the department’s Office of
slept on concrete floors or hard steel
the Inspector General,13 revealed the
bunk beds for days. COs fed them
cause of the riot to be directly related
baloney sandwiches, by dropping the
to the cost saving conditions existing
food on the cell floors. COs mistreated at the prison and the bulk transfer of
or punished all of them - the guilty and Washington inmates who were transinnocent alike - as rioters and locked
ferred on short notice, and separated
them down for up to three months with from friends, family and any support
little or no contact with families.
system.14

There were also injuries to some individual plaintiffs that were not common
to all, but were unique because of preexisting conditions that were aggravated
by the riot, or because of more brutal
treatment inflicted on some. For
example, those plaintiffs who were
told to lie face down in their cells in
sewage water that flooded their cells,
then drug through the water by their
ankles to be cuffed so tightly that the
ratcheted plastic cuffs cut into their skin
and numbed their hands and shoulders
as they were left in that condition for
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association

never disclosed to the DOC or Office
of the Inspector General. However,
several COs testified that they were
interviewed by the after action team,
and one, the Captain who authorized
the release of inmates to the yards on
the evening of the riot, testified he was
immediately put on administrative
leave following the interview, and later
discharged by CCA.
CCA failed and refused to provide
the “After Action Report,” which plaintiffs requested in formal discovery,
claiming that they could not find the
report. The trial court then granted
plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, ruling
that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury
instruction that would permit the jury
to conclude that the report was
favorable to the plaintiffs and adverse
to CCA.15

Unresolved Trial Problems and
Legal Issues
The complexity of this litigation created unusual problems and legal issues.
First, how would a jury hear the testimony
of 198 plaintiffs over the course of 25
weeks and be able remember that
testimony, particularly when each
plaintiff was asserting injuries and
damages unique to that plaintiff. Those
still incarcerated would be testifying by
telephone, compounding the problem.

It was a foregone conclusion that there
would be a mistrial, inconsistent verdicts
CCA’s Spoilation or Destruction
or inability to render verdicts. The
of Evidence
obvious solution would be an initial
In the course of this litigation, we
trial of just a few plaintiffs on all
also discovered that CCA has a policy
issues. If the plaintiffs prevailed on
of conducting its own internal investigaliability, issue preclusion (collateral
tion of the cause of riots in its facilities,
estoppel) would permit trying the
and did so in this case by immediately
remaining cases in groups of ten to
sending a team of five Wardens selected
the same jury, which would decide
from other CCA facilities as an “After
only damages. If the first trial
Action” team to conduct the investigaresulted in defense verdicts, the court
tion. The team leader authored an
would have to dismiss the remaining
“After Action Report” for the home
cases based on the doctrine of issue
office, which was kept secret and
preclusion.
Trial Talk

April/May 2013

47

TRINE’S TALES | Trine
However, collateral estoppel only
applies when the court enters the final
judgment. Entry of final judgments
would allow the parties to file appeals
following the first trial, thus delaying
trial of the remaining cases. If courts
affirmed liability on appeal, the plaintiffs
would have to try the remaining cases
before a new jury, necessitating a duplication of the liability evidence that
supported punitive damages. Therefore,
it would take a stipulation of the parties
agreeing to apply collateral estoppel to
the results of the first trial - without
entry of final judgments - in order to
proceed with a series of trials, using
the same jury to decide only the issue
of damages. The parties would also
have to agree to delay entry of final
judgments until the conclusion of
those trials.
CCA was unwilling to enter into such
an agreement. Instead, it proposed a
bellwether approach16 that would divide
plaintiffs who might have similar injuries into groups, then proceed to trial
with only a representative of each
group as a plaintiff. Everyone in a
designated group of plaintiffs would
then be bound to accept the same
amount of damages that the jury
awards to the group representative. We
could not ethically or legally utilize the
bellwether approach (sometimes used
in class actions when it is easy to calculate the damages to each member of
the class) where each plaintiff’s noneconomic damages were unique. Further,
this was not a class action, and the court
had no jurisdiction to order a bellwether
approach absent the consent of all
parties. Because it was unethical to
group plaintiffs in the manner requested,17
and we could not group the plaintiffs’
by their damages, we would not stipulate to a bellwether agreement.
Instead, we filed a motion for separate trials, asking the court first to
proceed with a trial of only a few

48

April/May 2013

plaintiffs on all issues. If plaintiffs
prevailed on liability, then we wanted
to use the same jury to decide the damage issues in trials of the remaining
plaintiffs in groups of ten. The court
denied the motion, and the Colorado
Supreme Court refused to intervene.18
Hence, in the absence of an agreement or court-ordered separate trials,
we prepared for a 25-week trial for
198 plaintiffs, certain that the trial
would end in a mistrial or reversible
error resulting in an appeal.

It understaffed the facility with inadequately trained COs. CCA knew that a
riot would harm many innocent inmates
and place its own employees at risk.
In fact, when the rioting began, frightened employees abandoned the yards
and housing units. Many later resigned. Why work at low wages
when your employer fails to protect
you from harm.

CCA was the legal custodian of the
innocent inmates - responsible for their
health and safety. It was also responsible for the safety of the surrounding
The second problem was a practical,
community and for those who responded
not legal problem. The court denied
to the riot. It was responsible for the
our motion to change venue out of
safety of its employees. This villain
Crowley County when CCA was the
violated all of those duties and respononly remaining defendant. The trial
sibilities - blinded by the desire for
court and the parties knew that jury
greater profits.
selection would be very difficult. There
were only 2,826 residents in Crowley
The plaintiffs were victims. The
County exclusive of prisoners, includ- employees were victims. The reing children and others who were not
sponders were victims. I can also
qualified for jury service. The prison
argue that the Washington inmates
system employed many of those resiwho started the disturbance and riot
dents or they knew people who worked were victims of CCA’s total indifference
there. In addition, the small courtroom to their need for family contact and
would accommodate only a handful of rehabilitation, when transferring them
jurors. In an effort to remedy these
to an isolated prison in Colorado. The
problems, the trial court set aside the
plaintiffs, who had no control, could
first week of trial for jury selection in a only trust that CCA would protect
church in Ordway, which the state
them. CCA betrayed them instead.
rented for that purpose. Then the state
So, did CCA learn anything from the
summoned 360 residents to appear there
Crowley experience? Apparently, it did
as jurors on two consecutive days in
not. It contracted with the California
groups of 180. Finding jurors willing to
DOC to send its inmates to the 2400sit for 25 weeks would alone pose a pobed medium-security prison operated
tential insurmountable barrier for jury
by CCA in Sayre, Oklahoma, resulting in
selection. The other legal issues and
a riot started by the California inmates
problems are best left for a future
on October 11, 2011, seven years after
“Trine’s Tales.
the Crowley riot. The Oklahoma riot
resulted in injuries to many inmates.
Conclusion
One thing is clear: when a private
The only villain in this case is CCA
prison company’s duty as a custodian,
who transferred a large group of unto protect the safety and welfare of its
happy Washington inmates to Colorado
inhabitants, conflicts with its desire to
for a profit, knowing that the transfer
create profits for its shareholders, the
placed the prison at high risk for a riot
profit motive always prevails. ▲▲▲
that CCA would be unable to control.
Trial Talk

Colorado Trial Lawyers Association

Trine | TRINE’S TALES
Bill Trine has been a successful trial
lawyer for 54 years. He has logged more
than 150 jury trials throughout his storied
career. A past president of CTLA and the
first recipient of the Norm Kripke Lifetime
Achievement Award, he also founded
and served as president of Trial Lawyers
for Public Justice, a Washington D.C.
based public interest law firm. He is on
the Board of Directors of the Trial Lawyers
College in Wyoming and the Human
Rights Defense Center in Vermont, which
publishes Prison Legal News.
Endnotes:
1

Adams v. Corrections Corporation of
America filed in the District Court of
Crowley County, State of Colorado, Case
Number 2005CV60 Div. B, consolidated
with Abrahamson v. CCA, Case Number
2006CV08.

2

We filed lawsuits for more than 230
inmates. Several died during the lengthy
litigation. Some returned to Washington
prisons after the riot and did not respond
to discovery requests or other court
orders. Some became homeless, and we
lost contact. The court dismissed their
cases. Of the 198 remaining who received offers of settlement, we could no
longer locate five. One had permission
to visit his dying mother, but failed to
return to the halfway house and remained
a fugitive. Another had been deported,
and we could no longer locate him. The
others essentially “disappeared” with no
family contacts.

3

My co-counsel and daughter, Cheryl Trine,
was an enormous asset from the beginning.
She assisted in writing briefs, taking and
defending depositions, arguing motions
and preparing for trial. I would also be
remiss in not publically giving credit to
my dear friend and great trial lawyer from
Washington D.C., George Shadoan, who
helped defend the depositions of our clients
and assisted me as a consultant. I also
credit my able assistant, Jenny Lindberg,
who has had constant contact with the
plaintiffs since 2004.

Colorado Trial Lawyers Association

10
Crouse deposition at pages 60-62.
See, Adams v. Corrections Corporation
11
of America, 187 P.3d 1190 (Colo. App.
In a perverse system of kickbacks,
2008) and Adams v. Corrections
prisons contract with private companies
Corporation of America, 264 P.3d 640
to operate the prison’s phone systems.
(Colo. App. 2011). Adele Kimmel, a
The private companies charge prisoners
lawyer with Trial Lawyers for Public
“commission fees” on every minute of
Justice, authored the winning brief in the
each call. Those commissions create an
first appellate decision, 187 P.3d 1190,
incentive to select phone companies that
making new law to permit inmates to sue
charge the prisoners more. See, Drew
in Colorado courts without first
Kukorwski, “The Price to Call Home:
exhausting administrative remedies.
State Sanctioned Monopolization in the
5
Nearly all were by telephone, each
Prison Phone Industry.” PRISON POLICY
lasting 2-3 hours. Many of the
INST., Sept. 11, 2012, and Justin Moyer,
inmate/clients were in prison facilities in
“After Almost a Decade, FCC has yet to
WA, CO and WY. We had to prepare for
Rule on High Cost of Prison Phone
depositions with each client by
Calls,” WASH. POST, Dec. 2, 2012.
telephone. Colorado trial lawyers who
For the 2.7 Million children who have one
assisted as volunteers in defending
or more parents incarcerated, a phone
depositions of plaintiffs are Deborah
call from mom or dad can cost $20.00 or
Taussig and John Taussig of Boulder and
more for just a few minutes, jeopardizing
Steve Shanahan of Fort Collins.
the finances of families already in peril.
6
If the phone calls cease, it further
CCA argued that even if the plaintiffs did
isolates prisoners from family and
not actively participate in the riot, 47
were guilty of comparative fault by
friends.
12
leaving their cells during the riot to
See, Terry Carter, Prison Break: Budget
phone family or by remaining in the
Crises Drive Reform, But Private Jails
yards when they could not return to their
Press On, A.B.A. J., Oct. 2012, quoting
units - they were locked out. CCA
Judith Greene, director of the non-profit
argued that this conduct constituted an
Justice Strategies, who states that the
“assumption of risk.”
profit margins of private prisons “depend
7
CCA named over 483 inmates as
mostly on spending less for the biggest
designated nonparties, claiming some
business cost - personnel. That means
participated in the riot, 189 made
paying less for prison guards, already an
extremely low-paying occupation. One
telephone calls during the riot, 106 were
result is high turnover and the
on the facility grounds “and/or outside
incompetence that inexperience brings.
their assigned cell/unit, failing to
lockdown” and that 21 were allegedly
Also see Scott Cohn, Private Prison
involved in an assault on another inmate.
Industry Grows Despite Critics, CNBC
CCA also designated, wholesale, the
Oct. 18, 2011, quoting Alex Friedman,
ed., PRISON LEGAL NEWS, “Literally, you
Colorado Department of Correction’s
can put a dollar figure on each inmate
SORT and ERT teams who responded to
that is held in a private prison. They are
the riot. In striking all of the nonparties,
treated as commodities. And that’s very
the court adopted plaintiffs’ arguments
dangerous and troubling when a
that the designations did not comply with
company sees the people it incarcerates
C.R.S. 13-21-111.5(3)(b).
8
as nothing more than a money stream. . .
On Jan. 1, 1999, Crowley County
. You have fewer guards that are less
entered into an agreement with a
experienced, that are paid less, who get
Delaware company, Crowley County
fewer benefits. . . .” Also, see Sheldon
Correctional Services (CCS) to operate
and Teji, Collateral Consequences of
CCCF.
Interstate Transfer of Prisoners, CTR. ON
9
Selman’s deposition testimony at pages
JUVENILE AND CRIM. JUSTICE (July 2012).
14-16.
4

Trial Talk

April/May 2013

49

TRINE’S TALES | Trine
13

See, Colo. Dept. Corrs. After Action
Report - Inmate Riot: Crowley County
Correctional Facility, July 20, 2004, pub.
Oct. 1, 2004, at 13-17.

Id.
We filed the motion for sanctions
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 37, supporting it by
Aloi v. Union Pac. R.R. Corp., 129 P.3d
999, 1002 (Colo. 2006) (The court has
the inherent power to provide the jury in
a civil case with an adverse instruction as
a sanction for spoliation or destruction of
evidence), and see Pfantz v. Kmart
Corp., 85 P.3d 564, 568-69 (Colo. App.
2003) (The court is not limited to
imposing a sanction only for intentional
spoliation, but may impose one based on
gross negligence or recklessness.) The
tendered instruction in the instant case
provided:
Colorado law required that the defendant,
Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA), produce a copy of the After

14

15

Action Report resulting from the
investigation of the riot by a team of five
Wardens assigned by CCA to conduct an
investigation. CCA was ordered by the
Court to provide plaintiffs with a copy of
the report and CCA did not do so.
Therefore, you are instructed that you
may conclude, in your deliberations, that
the report was favorable to the plaintiffs
and adverse to CCA.
A typical bellwether approach selects
some plaintiffs as representatives of the
larger group(s) of plaintiffs and the
selected plaintiffs proceed to trial. The
verdict(s) for or against each group(s)’s
representative binds the large group(s) of
plaintiffs, and each member of a group
receives the same damages as the group
representative.
17
Contracts and ethics bound the
plaintiffs’ counsel to treat each client’s
case individually and separately. Noneconomic damages varied by individual;
16

Stodola Engineering Limited
Motor Vehicle /Bicycle/ Pedestrian/
Product Liability /Premise Liability - Slip, Trip, Fall/
Mechanical Failures/Guarding
Vast Experience in a Wide-Range of Engineering Matters
Extensive Testimony History
Nationally Established
Professional
Highly Satisfied Clientele

ANNE STODOLA, MS, P.E.
DANIEL A. GODRICK, MS, P.E.
4450 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 100
Boulder, CO 80303

303.448.8868 {ph) 303.415.2500 (fax)
Email: annestodola@gmail.com

50

April/May 2013

we could not group them. Even if we
could place plaintiffs in clear and distinct
categories, this technique could deprive
non-parties to the exemplar trial of their
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial
and violate substantive and procedural
due process. See, In re Chevron U.S.A,
109 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 1997) (“this is
not one case but 3000 cases filed
individually, not as a class action, and
aggregated for trial management. . . .
The individual circumstances of each
plaintiff’s claim defy easy aggregated
treatment.” Also see, Abbott v. Kidder
Peabody & Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 1046
(1999) (a violation of contractual and
ethical obligations to clients) and Hayes
v. Eagle-Pitcher Industries, Inc., 513
F.2d 892 (1975).
18
Colo. Sup. Ct. Case No. 12SA350. Pet.
for Rule to Show Cause Pursuant to
C.A.R. 21 denied en banc Dec. 21, 2012.
Petition for rehearing denied Jan. 9,
2013.

Have you ever wondered what to do when
a colleague needs help with an addiction?
Do you know where to turn
for confidential peer support?
Colorado Lawyers Helping Lawyers, Inc. is a courtapproved, volunteer Board of Directors consisting of
lawyers and law students who offer confidential support
for colleagues experiencing problems with substance
abuse (alcohol/drugs) and mental health issues. CLHL
provides free confidential support group meetings for
judges, lawyers, and law students:
in recovery;
experiencing mental health issues;
women’s group;
virtual telephone support group.
For more information, call (303) 832-2233 or (800) 432-0977.
Visit our website at www.clhl.org.

Trial Talk

Colorado Trial Lawyers Association