This item is available on the Colorado Supreme Court website:
People v. Travis Shane Uhlenhopp. 19PDJ077. December 5, 2019.
Travis Shane Uhlenhopp was temporarily suspended (attorney registered number 39280) by the Presiding Discipline Judge. This suspension will be followed by a period of one year probation. The action took effect on January 9, 2020. Completing an ethics course is part of the probationary requirements. He must also comply with his probation and deferred judgement terms.
Uhlenhopp, a third-degree misdemeanor assault defendant in Denver County Court, pleaded guilty in February 2019 to the charge of misdemeanor second-degree assault stemming out of an altercation that occurred May 2018. Uhlenhopp hit her repeatedly in the face, causing several facial contusions. Uhlenhopp was sentenced to a 12-month suspended judgment with probationary conditions. This included a domestic violence assessment, treatment sessions for domestic violence, and random urine analyses.
Uhlenhopp failed to also report to Colorado’s disciplinary authorities the driving under influence conviction that she was convicted of in California, March 2017.
Uhlenhopp’s conduct violated Colo. RPC 8(b), which states that lawyers shall not be guilty of a crime that adversely affects their honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. Colo. RPC 251(b), on the other hand, requires lawyers to notify disciplinary authorities of convictions.
C.R.C.P. allows the public access to case files. 251.31.
Indeed, this item is linked to from the lawyer’s attorney record that comes up if you search on the court’s Attorney Search & Disciplinary History page.
The PDF link here indicates that the Denver County Court sealed records regarding the conviction. Google has been asked by the lawyer to remove two websites from its index (so Google users will not be able see them), which includes the Colorado Supreme Court page.
NOTE: This is a Court Order
Court Order Explanation
“Action information” (final part): Date: 02/04/20 – CASE DISMISSED/PLEA Withdrawn; Date: 02/07/20 : HEARING ON MOTION /MOTION GRANTED/RECORD SEALED PER COURT
… TARGETED URLS:
http://www.noethics.net/News/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25004:z&catid=137:colorado-attorney-misfits&Itemid=100;
https://coloradosupremecourt.com/pdj/Decisions/Uhlenhopp,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2019PDJ077,%2012-05-19.pdf
My thinking is: It appears that the trial court has sealed its criminal case records, which effectively means they are not available to the public. The Colorado Supreme Court did not decide to keep the records of the criminal case against defendant sealed. It seems that they believe the public should be able see the records. If it felt that was appropriate, there would not have been any First Amendment problems with the removal of the page. The page was not removed.
Then it’s difficult to understand why lawyers should be able get Google to conceal the information being shared by Colorado Supreme Court. It’s also difficult to understand why Google searchers shouldn’t be denied the information, which is believed to be relevant for people looking into this lawyer’s past disciplinary records. Google, however, has not removed the page from its search results despite twice asking.