The office
The Colorado Court of Appeals is the state's intermediate appellate court. As of July 1, 2008, the Court consists of 22 judges who are retained by the public to serve eight-year terms. The Court sits in three-member divisions to decide cases.
From Colorado Judicial Branch.
The questionYes or no
Shall Judge Katharine E. Lum of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
The performance commission's review
- The commission found
- Meets Performance Standards
- Its vote
- 9-0
- Surveys answered
- 25
- Overall grade
- 3.8 of 4
What the commission said
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Katharine E. Lum, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Lum was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2022 and has served for four years. This is her first time standing for retention. The Commission finds she embodies the qualities of an outstanding appellate judge and is a valuable asset to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Her opinions are fair and thoughtful, and she delivers well-reasoned decisions based on the law and facts. She is an exceptional judicial writer who conveys her opinions in a clear and accessible style understood by litigants, practitioners, and members of the public alike. She arrives well-prepared to oral arguments, and is engaged, present, and respectful in the Courtroom. She also serves as the Liaison to the 15th Judicial District. Beyond her duties as a judge, she participates in community service activities that advance the court’s mission.
The Commission conducted its evaluation of Judge Lum by considering her self-evaluation, observing her oral arguments, examining a selection of her legal opinions (including dissents), conducting an in-person interview with her, and reviewing survey responses submitted by attorneys and judges. Every survey respondent agreed that Judge Lum meets performance standards. She received positive feedback in regard to her strong listening, polite and respectful nature, and thorough preparation.
Judge Lum earned her JD from the University of California Berkeley School of Law. Prior to joining the bench, she was Of Counsel with Cooper Ramp Cage Bucar Lewis (and predecessor firms) where she specialized in domestic relations law at the trial and appellate levels; and she clerked for the Honorable Gregory J. Hobbs Jr. of the Colorado Supreme Court. She serves on the Supreme Court Standing Committee on Family Issues; as the Court of Appeals liaison and coordinator for a long-standing externship program with Colorado law schools; and as a board member of the Minoru Yasui Inn of Court.
The survey
The share of each group surveyed who said the judge meets performance standards.
The survey's figures
| Meets performance standards | Attorneys | Judges |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 100% (6) | 100% (19) |
| No | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
| No opinion | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
A share of those in the group who answered, and in brackets how many.
Opinions
The judge's published opinions as CourtListener holds them, through Dec. 24, 2025.
Most cited
The division's summary
Section 14-10-128.5(2), C.R.S. 2024, allows a party who has previously consented to arbitration of disputed parenting matters to “move the court to modify the arbitrator’s award pursuant to a de novo hearing.” If the court grants the motion and “substantially upholds” the arbitrator’s decision, the party who requested the de novo hearing “shall be ordered to pay the fees and costs of the other party... incurred in responding to” the motion “unless the court finds that it would be manifestly unjust.” Id. A division of the court of appeals holds that a court “substantially upholds” the arbitrator’s decision if it reaches a substantially similar outcome, regardless of whether the court’s reasoning differs from the arbitrator’s. The division also holds that “fees and costs... incurred in responding to” the motion for a de novo hearing (1) do not include fees and costs incurred before the motion for a de novo hearing is filed but (2) do include fees and costs incurred in preparing for and attending the de novo hearing after the motion is granted.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals holds that the model jury instructions for retaliation against a witness or victim and for attempt to commit retaliation against a witness or victim, together with the model jury instruction explaining the mental state “intentionally,” do not adequately inform the jury of the specific intent required to commit retaliation against a witness or victim as described in People v. Hickman, 988 P.2d 628 (Colo. 1999).
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals considers for the first time whether a district court’s postconviction order denying a motion for return of property is a final and appealable judgment, even though the defendant could refile the motion following the conclusion of the pending postconviction proceedings. The division concludes that the district court’s order is final and appealable because it fully addressed the motion on the merits.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals holds that the word “protracted,” as used in the definition of “serious bodily injury,” § 18-1-901(3)(p), C.R.S. 2023, means “prolonged, continued, or extended” but does not necessarily mean “permanent.” Using this definition, the division rejects the defendant’s argument that insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the defendant caused the victim to suffer serious bodily injury. Because it also rejects the defendant’s other challenges, the division affirms the judgment.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals holds that, if a person secures permission to enter a dwelling by means of ruse, trickery, or deception, the person enters “unlawfully” for purposes of first degree criminal trespass, § 18-4-502(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024.
Most recent
As printed in the document it was read from. The review from the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation's evaluation and its survey report (read Oct. 12). Opinions from CourtListener, the Free Law Project's archive of court opinions.