Second Judicial District - District Court Judge
Honorable Edward David Bronfin
Retention Year: 2016
Recommendation: Meets Performance Standard
Reports:
2016 Retention Survey Report (PDF)
2013 Interim Survey Report (PDF)
2011 Interim Survey Report (PDF)
Need an accessible PDF Document Version?
Please click on the link below and email our staff
The Second Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance on a vote of 8 to 2 recommends that Judge Edward David Bronfin BE RETAINED.
Judge Bronfin became a Denver District Court Judge in July 2008. Prior to his appointment Judge Bronfin was a trial lawyer handling civil cases, primarily in the areas of medical and hospital malpractice, medical licensing issues and medical products liability. He received his undergraduate degree from St. John’s College with a degree in liberal arts. He earned his law degree from the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver in 1981 and was awarded membership in the Order of St. Ives for academic achievement. He is a mentor to law students and new lawyers and is a participant on the Colorado Supreme Courts’ Standing Committee on Family Issues and the Probation Advisory Board.
Judge Bronfin currently handles criminal cases and previously has presided in civil and domestic relations divisions. The Commission reviewed the results of surveys of attorneys and non-attorneys as well as Judge Bronfin’s self-evaluation, interviewed the judge, reviewed written opinions and selected members of the Commission observed Judge Bronfin in court. Of attorneys completing the survey 76% recommended to retain and 24% not to retain. Of non-attorneys completing the survey 97% recommended to retain and 2% not to retain. (These percentages do not total 100% due to rounding.)
Attorney survey responses indicate that Judge Bronfin’s performance is below the average scores for all district court judges standing for retention with respect to his case management, application and knowledge of law, communications and demeanor, and near or above average with respect to diligence. Non-attorney survey respondents rated Judge Bronfin’s performance above average in all areas. Attorney survey respondents consistently commend Judge Bronfin for always being prepared for his docket and running an efficient courtroom. Non-attorney respondents praise his willingness to explain complex legal proceedings and engage them in the court’s business. However, a significant concern raised by some attorney survey respondents is Judge Bronfin’s demeanor. While some respondents describe him as professional and respectful, other comments describe him as impatient, not able to hold his temper, and biased. The numeric scores on factors related to demeanor and bias tend to confirm that these areas require improvement. Although there are indications that Judge Bronfin recognizes these issues and has taken steps to address them, the Commission recommends that Judge Bronfin continue his efforts to address these concerns.