Lawyer Asks Google to Hide His Bar Discipline Information on State Supreme Court's Web Site

The Colorado Supreme Court site has this item on one of its pages:

People v. Travis Shane Uhlenhopp. 19PDJ077. December 5, 2019.

The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties' conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Travis Shane Uhlenhopp (attorney registration number 39280) for six months, all to be served and followed by of a one-year period of probation, effective January 9, 2020. The probationary requirements include completing an ethics course and complying with all terms of his deferred judgment and probation.

In February 2019, Uhlenhopp pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor third-degree assault charge in Denver County Court stemming from a May 2018 altercation with his then-girlfriend. Uhlenhopp struck her multiple times in the face, causing her several facial contusions, including a black eye and a swollen cheek. Uhlenhopp received a twelve-month deferred judgment and sentence with probationary conditions, including a domestic violence evaluation, domestic violence treatment sessions, and random urinary analyses.

Uhlenhopp also failed to report to Colorado disciplinary authorities a driving under the influence conviction that occurred in California in March 2017.

Through this conduct, Uhlenhopp violated Colo. RPC 8.4(b) (a lawyer shall not commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and Colo. RPC 251.20(b) (requiring lawyers to report convictions to disciplinary authorities).

The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 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.

Now apparently the records of the conviction have been sealed by the Denver County Court, according to the PDF linked here. And the lawyer has now asked Google to deindex two web pages (so that Google users won't be able to see them), including the one on the Colorado Supreme Court site:

NOTICE TYPE: Court Order

Explanation of Court Order

"Action Information" (final section): Date: 02/04/20: CASE DISMISSED/PLEA WITHDRAWN; Date: 02/07/20: HEARING ON MOTION TO SEAL/MOTION GRANTED/RECORD SEALED BY COURT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

Here's my thinking: I understand that a trial court has decided to seal its own records about the criminal case, which means those records are no longer available from the court. But the Colorado Supreme Court has obviously not decided to seal its records about the disciplinary measures against the defendant; it seems to think that the public ought to be able to see them. There would have been no First Amendment problem with its removing the page from its own site if it thought that appropriate. But it kept the page up.

It's hard then to see why a lawyer should be able to get Google to hide this information that is being distributed by the Colorado Supreme Court. And it's hard to see why Google searchers should be denied this information that the Colorado Supreme Court seems to think is relevant to people who want to know this particular lawyer's disciplinary history. (To its credit, Google hasn't deindexed the page, despite two requests.)

Comments

[Martinned]

For those who are interested in the right to be forgotten in other jurisdictions, probably the most recent development is the ECtHR judgment in Biancardi v. Italy: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/01/07/biancardi-v-italy-a-broader-right-to-be-forgotten/

This one is noteworthy because it comes from an action against a newspaper, not against Google (as has historically been more common). Note also that this judgment is from the European Court for Human Rights, not the EU Court of Justice.

[Ed Grinberg]

Thank God for the First Amendment!

[Martinned]

Yes, because if there's one thing the US needs more of it's naming and shaming on the internet.

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[Ed Grinberg]

If there's one thing U.S. doesn't need more of, it's censorship.

[tkamenick]

Wow I hope the Colorado Supreme Court disciplines him for this too.

[A nerdy Fred]

I wonder if the day will come when people understand the Streisand Effect. I am not holding my breath.

[santamonica811]

Pro Tip: If your career path is as a criminal, or disciplined attorney, or registered sex offender, or incompetent doctor; have a name like John Smith or Mary Jones. Having a unique name like Travis Uhlenhopp means that even routine Google searches will bring up you and only you.

(On the other hand--having just done a Google search for research purposes--it looks like our Mr. Uhlenhopp has a lovely and engaging smile. I assume that when he is not beating the shit out of women, he's probably a fun guy at office cocktail parties.)

[Pooneil]

I guess a guy that is undisciplined enough to beat on women, is also undisciplined enough to think this kind of legal action would help him. Now he need to go after this blog as well if he wants to separate his name from his crime. Good luck with that, Mr. Uhlenhopp (attorney registration number 39280).

[jvarmstrong]

I knew this guy.
Went to elementary, middle and high school with him.
The outstanding thing I remember about Travis was that he was kind, even in middle school when no one was kind—followed by insanely intelligent. I remember him defending me when couple of boys were being jackasses on the bus in middle school, him saying something to them and then popping up over the seat to change the subject and cheer me up. He always was super sensitive to people in distress, I’m having a hell of a time imagining him punching anyone, much less a girlfriend.
He graduated valedictorian, went to Pepperdine and honestly he was one of those people who you see become successful and it seemed reaffirming.

I’m a longtime Reason reader and found this post looking for information on his death after his parents posted his obituary on his Facebook page. Martinned is on to something.

[AmyMichelle]

I knew Travis very well because I was his girlfriend. He was an incredible loving, funny man and lawyer who was brilliant, kind and never ever showed any signs of violence towards me. There are many times when women falsely accuse men of violence, self harm to create physical depictions of violence and a man has to plead to things in order to make it go away. Should he have his entire career destroyed over it or should he be able to use means available to him to stop further damage?

He killed himself shortly after this whole thing and articles like this are disgusting and do nothing to benefit anyone except for those posting stories like this. Targeting his character as whole for something nobody but him and the woman involve know the truth about. So anyone reading this article know from a woman who had a lengthy loving relationship with him that he was the type of man who went out of his way to be there for people and his very presence was a joy to everyone who knew him and albeit he was not perfect but definitely not a villain and woman beater like depicted in this article. His memory is a blessing to thousands of people and you should take this hit piece down.