2024 retention · County Court · Mesa County
88 percentile · rank 6 of 47
composite 0100
87 percentile · rank 14 of 107
composite 0100
21 32nd percentile among peers · 21st percentile statewide
671
Composite index 83.33 among peers (83.33 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.60 of 4 · 84.04 percentile
2.103.80
3.62 of 4 · 84.04 percentile
2.173.75
92.00% 81.91 percentile
27.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 92.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 86.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.70median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.60median 3.10 | 3.10 | |
| Communications | 3.70median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Diligence | 3.60median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Demeanor | 3.60median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Fairness | 3.50median 3.20 | 3.20 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that County Court Judge Michael Joseph Grattan III MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Judge Grattan presides over civil, criminal, misdemeanor, and traffic matters in the county court of Mesa County, Colorado with the majority of his cases being criminal. His rulings provide good analysis, and he applies the facts to the law. Judge Grattan pays attention to and shows concern for the people appearing in his courtroom, regardless of their status. It is evident that he knows his actions may impact the future of these individuals. In criminal cases, he has a stated goal of helping ensure that the defendant reforms and gets out of the criminal justice system. He is well organized and prepares in advance for his docket. By studying and reading he strives to keep informed and up to date on the law. Administratively, Judge Grattan has become more adept at moving cases along through the process, including monitoring aging cases. He is conscientious about ensuring that efficiency does not come at the expense of giving each case the time and attention it needs. Overall, he is a dedicated, responsible, and conscientious judge. Commission members observed these qualities during their evaluation and interview of Judge Grattan.
The Commission interviewed Judge Grattan, reviewed opinions he authored, observed him in court and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in Judge Grattan’s court. Among the survey questions was “based on your responses to previous questions related to the performance evaluation criteria, do you think Judge Grattan meets judicial standards?” Of the attorneys responding to the survey 92% answered yes. Of the non-attorneys responding to the survey question 100% answered yes. Regrettably, only twelve attorneys and six non-attorneys responded to the judicial performance surveys expressing their opinion of Judge Grattan, and therefore the Commission did not rely heavily on these survey results.
Judge Grattan received his undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia in 1986 and a law degree from the College of William & Mary in 1990. Judge Grattan was in private practice in Indiana from 1990 through 1999 and in private practice in Grand Junction, Colorado from 1999 through 2016. He was appointed to the County Court bench by Governor Hickenlooper in January 2017.
2020 retention · County Court · Mesa County
33 percentile · rank 24 of 37
composite 0100
28 percentile · rank 72 of 100
composite 0100
37 79th percentile among peers · 62nd percentile statewide
380
Composite index 36.94 among peers (32.17 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.30 of 4 · 29.73 percentile
1.504.00
3.40 of 4 · 37.84 percentile
1.503.95
82.00% 43.24 percentile
0.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 82.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 80.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.40median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.10median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.40median 3.60 | 3.60 | |
| Diligence | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.50median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.60median 3.90 | 3.90 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The Twenty-First Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously determined (10-0) Judge Michael J. Grattan III MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
In evaluating Judge Grattan’s performance, the Commission considered the judicial criteria identified by state law—namely integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public. In his interview with the Commission, Judge Grattan emphasized his commitment to being a “smart, fair, and conscientious” jurist. The Commission found Judge Grattan to be particularly strong with respect to integrity, communication skills, and judicial temperament. The Commission observed Judge Grattan continues to gain knowledge and familiarity in addressing criminal law matters and commends his ongoing efforts in this regard. Judge Grattan also continues to make marked improvement in his case and docket management, though he noted he is considering ways in which he might appropriately economize judicial proceedings by limiting some of the extended exchanges among parties appearing before him. The reviewed written orders from Judge Grattan were understandable and clearly reasoned.
In addition to its personal interview with Judge Grattan and review of certain civil and criminal orders he authored, the Commission considered a written self-evaluation that Judge Grattan completed and reviewed survey responses from attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared before him. The survey questions addressed case and docket management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, judicial demeanor, diligence, and fairness. Judge Grattan’s marks from this survey were generally consistent with those of other county judges, and a large majority of both attorneys and non-attorneys indicate he meets performance standards. The Commission also discussed Judge Grattan’s performance with the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, and the Public Defender. Unlike with its 2019 interim review, the Commission was unable to observe Judge Grattan in the courtroom due to Colorado Supreme Court and Twenty-First Judicial District orders suspending normal court operations in light of the public health risk posed by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Judge Grattan has served as a Mesa County Court judge since his appointment in January 2017 and presides over civil, felony bonding, misdemeanor criminal, traffic, and small claims matters. Before his judicial appointment, Judge Grattan had a contract, corporate, and civil law practice in Grand Junction. In evaluating Judge Grattan’s performance as a judicial officer, the Commission was impressed with his candor, positivity, and thoughtfulness—which extend to his efforts to identify and counter implicit bias that may affect his rulings. The Commission also noted Judge Grattan’s engagement with the community, including service on the Mesa County Criminal Justice Advisory Committee as well as the Access to Justice Committee. The Commission finds Judge Grattan to be valuable member of the bench and believes his performance as a judicial officer reflects well on the Twenty-First Judicial District.