ictured above is the once unknown but now obscure editorial staff of “The Docket,” captured in one of its typically-productive think tank sessions. This April issue marks our first anniversary as a yellow sheet. A year ago, many a skeptic scoffed at the suggestion that lawyers could put together a readable newspaper for lawyers. A year’s history has, of course, proved the skeptics right. Typical of the wildly enthusiastic response we have received from the Bar is the following fan letter, printed in its entirety:
“Dear Ed.: (For some reason, everyone thinks we are all named “Ed”) ” I have some suggestions for your publication. It would be greatly improved by changing the color to blue, reducing the size to one sheet and changing the name to ‘The Bar Calendar.’ Sincerely, William B. Miller”
Well, enough of the self-laudation.
We would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the Denver Bar activities during the past year. There was the awkward and ragged transition from the Bill McClearn administration to the Will Carpenter regime. (Will literally had to pry the gavel from the unrelenting clutches of Mr. McClearn.) There was the Bar’s gleeful acceptance of the new rules permitting advertising: ironically and unexplainably, “The Docket” has yet to receive a single ad for a lawyer. Then there was mandatory C.L.E.
The Colorado Supreme Court approved the Interim Regulations of the Colorado Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education. The regulations which were closely patterned after a Sanskrit translation of the Internal Revenue regs, provided such diadems of clarity as the following:
“Regulation 102(a): ‘For registered attorneys in groups 1 and 2 (see Rule 260.6), units of continuing legal education in excess of the required 15 units for 1979 or 30 units for 1979-80, respectively, may not be used to satisfy the requirements of the first full three-year period of compliance.'” Howzat?
The success of the guidance pro- vided by the regs may be readily seen in the types of applications for C.L.E. credits that have been sent in. A lawyer in Hugo requested credit for having committed to memory the dissenting opinion in Shelley’s case. An optimistic counselor in Meeker tried to certify a mail order course he had given himself in Murphy’s law, and an application was even sent in by a La Jara taxidermist who had stuffed an albino owl who he claimed resembled Federal Judge John L. Kane, Jr. All three applications were granted.
The only other Bar activity of note was the happy hour at Duffy’s on St. Patrick’s Day.
Before you relegate this issue to the parakeet cage, allow us to pay tribute to the two unindicted co-conspirators who have been most responsible for inflicting this Blat on an unsuspecting Bar. Chairman
of the Docket Committee is the pensive but short Art Frazin, who has not written a word of copy since he misspelled the word “Bar” in the opening issue.
The greatest blame, however, is to be laid at the feet of our only (and thus blessed) non-lawyer, Larry Weiss, who has cheerfully dumped a quarter of a century of journalistic experience down the drain. Mr. Weiss must be a blood relative of the famous Ehrich Weiss (better known as Harry Houdini), for it has taken many a feat of prestidigitation to transform our amateur scribblings into something remotely resembling a real newsletter. Happy April Fools’ Day. D