Eighteenth Judicial District - District Court Judge
Honorable Timothy L. Fasing
Retention Year: 2010
The Eighteenth Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously recommends that Judge Timothy L. Fasing BE RETAINED.
Judge Fasing graduated magna cum laude from the University of Minnesota in 1970 and from the University of Colorado School of Law in 1975. He has attended both the National Judicial College and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Institute.
From 1975 to 1979 Judge Fasing was a prosecuting attorney and then spent 12 years in private practice. In 1990 he was appointed Arapahoe County Judge where he served for four years before being appointed to the District Court. Judge Fasing’s current primary responsibility is handling cases involving abused and neglected children. Judge Fasing is also the Presiding Probate and Mental Health Judge for the Eighteenth Judicial District, where he serves on the management team for the District.
The Commission reviewed written evaluations of Judge Fasing from attorneys and non-attorneys, as well as a written self-evaluation completed by Judge Fasing. A personal interview of Judge Fasing was conducted by the Commission, and members of the Commission observed Judge Fasing in the courtroom. The Commission is impressed with Judge Fasing’s performance on the bench. He is fair and unbiased. Responding attorneys in part noted that Judge Fasing was, in some instances, slow to respond to civil motions and on occasion, cannot give some matters or litigants enough court time. The Commission was concerned with these comments, and made a thorough investigation. All the judges in Arapahoe County are laboring under docket pressure, and sometimes matters and litigants are not processed in a timely manner. Judge Fasing’s additional assignment has further imposed on his courtroom duties.
Approximately three years ago he was assigned to organize and manage a new district court judge division handling all of Arapahoe County’s probate cases (including all guardianships and conservatorships), all of the mental health cases and all of the dependent, abused/neglected children cases. This had never before been attempted, and scheduling these cases is difficult as it routinely mandates priority emergency hearings, usually on short notice. The importance of this work to the community cannot be overestimated, and Judge Fasing’s handling of these matters along with his own docket imposes a tremendous pressure on Judge Fasing’s combined docket. The Commission adds strength to its unanimous retention recommendation with the importance of Judge Fasing’s work, which is a credit to the judiciary and the legal profession. His need to, at times, give priority to emergency matters over his scheduled docket is understandable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Of all attorneys surveyed about retention, 68% recommended to retain, 23% not to retain, and 9% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 74% recommended to retain and 26% not to retain. Of all non-attorneys surveyed, 85% recommended to retain, 4% not to retain, and 10% expressed no opinion. Excluding those who had no opinion, 96% recommended to retain and 5% not to retain. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.)