2022 retention · District Court · 20th Judicial District
24 percentile · rank 51 of 67
composite 0100
19 percentile · rank 109 of 134
composite 0100
74 85th percentile among peers · 89th percentile statewide
15132
Composite index 31.59 among peers (25.75 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.20 of 4 · 21.64 percentile
2.603.80
3.20 of 4 · 18.66 percentile
2.583.82
88.00% 54.48 percentile
43.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 88.00%
Non-attorneys
- Say “meets standards”
- 56.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.40median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 2.90median 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| Communications | 3.30median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Diligence | 3.10median 3.40 | 3.40 | |
| Demeanor | 3.30median 3.50 | 3.50 | |
| Fairness | 3.20median 3.40 | 3.40 |
Commission: meets standards (10–0)
The 20 th Judicial District Commission on Judicial Performance unanimously agrees by a vote of 10-0 that Judge Andrew Hartman MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The Colorado statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Hartman presides over criminal, civil, domestic relations, juvenile, mental health and probate cases in the 20 th Judicial District in Boulder, CO. His judicial temperament is friendly and respectful, putting those in his courtroom at ease. His legal decisions reflect reason and an understanding of the law, which he follows even when unpopular. While the survey responses submitted by non-attorneys suggest that his communication standards can be improved, the Commissioners found that the written rulings he provided for review and his communication from the bench were clear in his application of the law to the facts presented. Judge Hartman is a well-prepared judge who uses his administrative time effectively and works regularly to improve his knowledge of the law and to meet the needs of those he serves. He processes feedback with an open mind as he believes it is important to continuously improve as a judge.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hartman, reviewed opinions he authored, observed his performance in court, and reviewed judicial performance survey responses from both attorneys and non-attorneys who participated in Judge Hartman’s court proceedings. The Commission also received comments on Judge Hartman’s performance from the district attorney and representatives of the defense bar and hosted a public hearing, at which citizens provided additional input regarding his performance as a judge.
Judge Andrew Hartman was appointed District Judge in 2013. Boulder County voters retained him in 2016 with 80% support. Previously, he practiced law for 20+ years, chairing the Colorado litigation practice at Cooley LLP and serving as general counsel for Keen, the popular footwear company. Judge Hartman is active in the CU community where he was the law school’s Director of Experiential Learning, taught for 12 years, and served on the Board of the Leeds Business School’s Deming Center Venture Fund. He is dedicated to the justice system and chaired an interagency task force that safely resumed jury trials after the pandemic lockdown. Judge Hartman presided over Boulder’s first pandemic era felony jury trial, a homicide case that resulted in a conviction. Judge Hartman graduated from Georgetown University law school with honors, and the University of Michigan. He and his wife of 30 years are long-time residents of Boulder County.
2016 retention · District Court · 20th Judicial District
90 percentile · rank 6 of 61
composite 0100
90 percentile · rank 10 of 108
composite 0100
89 72nd percentile among peers · 63rd percentile statewide
17164
Composite index 83.88 among peers (85.19 statewide): the mean of the three percentiles below. Rank orders by it.
3.79 of 4 · 95.90 percentile
2.793.84
3.74 of 4 · 92.62 percentile
2.813.84
89.00% 63.11 percentile
40.00%100.00%
Attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.65
- Say “meets standards”
- 89.00%
Non-attorneys
- Overall grade
- 3.83
- Say “meets standards”
- 95.00%
| Category | Score | Peer median | Peer range (dot is this judge, line is the median) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Management | 3.64median 3.38 | 3.38 | |
| Application and Knowledge of Law | 3.65median 3.41 | 3.41 | |
| Communications | 3.81median 3.53 | 3.53 | |
| Diligence | 3.72median 3.48 | 3.48 | |
| Demeanor | 3.79median 3.47 | 3.47 | |
| Fairness | 3.81median 3.68 | 3.68 |
Commission: meets standards (9–0)
The Judicial Performance Commission for the Twentieth Judicial District unanimously recommends, by a vote of 9-0, that Judge Andrew Hartman BE RETAINED. One commission member was recused.
Judge Hartman was appointed as a District Court Judge in the Twentieth Judicial District on September 2, 2013. Prior to his appointment, Judge Hartman was a partner at Gross Hartman. He was also an adjunct professor and director of experiential education at the University of Colorado Law School. Judge Hartman has previously served as general counsel for Keen, Inc., and as partner at Cooley LLP and Reed Smith LLP. Judge Hartman received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree, with honors, from Georgetown University where he served as an editor of the American Criminal Law Review. Judge Hartman was admitted to the bar in 1989.
The Commission conducted a personal interview with Judge Hartman, reviewed his self-evaluation and several opinions he authored, observed him in court, and reviewed responses to anonymous surveys sent to attorneys and non-attorneys who appeared in Judge Hartman’s courtroom. The Commission also invited input from the citizens in a public hearing soliciting information about all the judges up for retention. The Commission considered all of these sources of information in reaching its recommendation. Regarding survey results, of the attorneys completing the survey, 89% recommended to retain, 5% not to retain, and 5% made no recommendation regarding retention. Of non-attorneys completing the survey, 95% recommended to retain, 1% not to retain, and 3% made no recommendation regarding retention. (These percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.) A total of twenty attorneys and sixty-nine non-attorneys completed the judicial performance surveys regarding Judge Hartman.
In his first two-and-a-half years on the bench, Judge Hartman’s caseload has been approximately 30% civil, 25% juvenile, 25% criminal, 15% domestic relations, and 5% mental health. In our interview, Judge Hartman expressed his over-arching goals of treating everyone with respect, fairness, and the appearance of fairness. He acknowledged that he had to learn many new areas of the law with which he did not have prior experience while in private practice and that he continues to learn. The Commission appreciates Judge Hartman’s commitment to impartiality, respect, and fairness and as well as his humility in light of the responsibilities placed in the judiciary. Judge Hartman received high marks in case management, communications, and demeanor. The Commission concludes that Judge Hartman is an excellent judge and one who will continue to grow with additional experience over time.