Recent Developments New (July 23, 2026) The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline originally sought the removal of County Court Judge Ian MacLaren from the bench. He sits in Montezuma County. The allegations of misconduct are outlined in the Colorado Politics article of September 11, 2025 entitled: "Montezuma County judge faces disciplinary proceedings for ‘lying,’ handling of criminal case. " Read it here: Within days of a scheduled trial on judicial misconduct charges, the commission and the judge agreed to an admission of judicial misconduct, a 90 day suspension and additional education. The trial would have been the first under the revised framework for judicial discipline adopted in November 2024. Read the article from the Colorado Springs Gazette here: "Montezuma County judge faces disciplinary proceedings for ‘lying,’ handling of criminal case." Discipline panel OKs Montezuma Co. judge's censure, suspension October 27, 2025 The American Bar Association Journal published a story related to allegations of Colorado judicial corruption. It leads off with this headline: "Former judicial ethics chief files suit claiming Colorado justices, other officials conspired to hide misconduct." This is one of the latest developments as the Masias Contract Scandal continues to reverberate in Colorado judicial circles. Read the article here: Former judicial ethics chief files suit . . . October 2025 New rules for judicial discipline proceedings are being adopted. Link to our section on the The rulemaking process is underway. Access the recent rules and public comments, including extensive comments submitted by former executive director of Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Rulemaking Links to Public Comments August 20, 2024 Access the detailed and complete Request for Evaluation filed relating to the Masias Contract Scandal Link to Request for Evaluation re: Masias Contract Scandal July 24, 2025 FEEDBACK from Christopher Gregory System skewed to benefit disciplined judges FEEDBACK: System skewed to benefit disciplined judges June 27, 2025 Letter to Editor: Judicial reforms are in place 2025-06-27 Letter re Judicial reforms are in place.pdf June 15, 2025 Opinion by former executive director of Colorado Commission for Judicial Discipline, Christopher Gregory. Perspective - Above the Law May 7, 2025 Senate rejects Colorado judicial discipline appointee while approving another Read Story at Colorado Politics May 6, 2025 Colorado Senate committee balks at governor's judicial discipline nominations. Read story here May 1, 2025 OPINION: Colorado's highest court has lost credibility. A comprehensive, behind-the-scenes, insider look at Colorado judicial politics at the highest level. Continue reading at this link . . .

Hear from a Victim of a Judge's Sexual Harassment In August of 2022, a committee of the Colorado legislature was investigating the judiciary. The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA) presented written testimony from a young survivor of sexual harassment by a judge. Fearing retaliation, she remained anonymous. Her story of being victimized by the system after she reported being victimized by the judge explains why. You can read her testimony by following the link below: Her Testimony To News Story - Denver Gazette

Financial Disclosures Colorado judges, like other public office holders, are required to make annual public disclosures about their financial interests. This is to allow accountability on conflicts of interest. Failing to file these disclosures is a crime. In 2023, reporters revealed that large numbers of judges, maybe over 100, were not filing the required disclosures. The discipline commission started investigations of these reports and, as of the date of this writing, the public has heard nothing more. How is a voter to make an informed decision about a judge in this system? How to find a judge's financial disclosure: Follow this link to the Colorado Secretary of State's website - fill out this online form: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/CampaignFinance/requestCopy.html Story Judges the Gazette reported as failing to file. Is your judge on the list? Are you about to vote for a judge on the list? Has the judge faced any accountability for breaking the disclosure law? Did a legitimate investigation clear the judge of wrongdoing? To Story Story As this is written and an election approaches, we voters in Colorado have no idea ho w these investigations came out. Story Story Story "Two different district court judges - each with four years of missing disclosures ... - sit on judicial discipline commissions whose job it is to punish jurists for their misconduct." Denver Gazette, August 10, 2023 Story Story Story Story

The Discipline Commission reports that it has taken "corrective action" with more than 250 judges. Few of these judges needing "correction" are ever revealed to the public. Every now and then, the Discipline Commission will describe a disciplined judge by misconduct but not name them. Are you about to vote for that judge? You have no way of knowing. Annual Report "Did you vote to retain the judge [disciplined last year] who promoted extensive drinking among court staff, which led to a sexual relationship with a staff member?" Expose the records of Colorado's judges, Gazette Commentary by Chris Forsyth, October 28, 2020 Link to Commentary Did this judge decide sexual harassment cases when they were involved in this workplace affair gone bad? Are those decisions tainted by the judge's personal interests? Did the parties ever receive notice of a possible basis for appeal?

Unnamed Judge - "Private Discipline" The Discipline Commission reports that it has taken "corrective action" with more than 250 judges throughout its history. Few of the judges needing "correction" are ever revealed to the public. Now and then, the Discipline Commission will describe a disciplined judge by misconduct but not name. Such a case is described below. Did you vote for this judge? You have no way of knowing. This judge admitted to violating the law. Was the judge ever prosecuted? Was the judge's "friend" protected from prosecution? Did this judge ever preside over a criminal case while he/she was trying to avoid prosecution for themselves or their friend? Are those cases tainted? We have no way of knowing.

Judge Brett Woods The Denver juvenile court presiding judge resigned amid revelations of alcohol abuse. Later reporting revealed that colleagues on the bench had covered up for him including pressuring a clerk of court that raised concerns. As well known as his drinking problem was, the Judicial Performance Commission nonetheless recommended that voters retain Judge Woods. Judge Woods eventually resigned and has now been publicly censured by the Colorado Supreme Court on December 9, 2024. Read the Court's order here: People v. Woods, 2024 CO 72 (Dec. 9, 2024) To Story To Story Evaluation

Investigation of the "Memo's" allegations What follows is an itemized summary of the investigation. For a more detailed anlysis and critique, see this linked report: "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Fail to investigate Destroyed records Investigation: The central witness was unavailable to the investigator and had a nondisclosure agreement. Many copies of the complaint existed and were circulated to many for discussion. However, no record of the complaint remains in existence to examine. Result: "Ultimately, there was no investigation conducted or any other response to the letter." The records were destroyed. "Matters were left to the Chief Justice--the person complained about--to manage." ILG Report at p. 13-14 "Complaints about any respondent, no matter how highly placed, should be independently assessed and investigated if they implicate the organization's legal obligations to maintain a harassment free workplace for employees. This is particularly true where, as here, an organization intends to send the message that no one employee or judicial officer is above the law. " ILG Report at p. 15 The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Judge emailing pornography Chief Justice did not address and promoted person. Investigation: A central witness unavailable to investigator, had NDA Result: "Not Substantiated" ? Pornographic email confirmed to exist. Accused denied sending. Investigator accepted this but failed to explain how HR had a copy of the email if it was never sent. Accused was promoted. ILG Report at p. 16-19 The Judicial Department's human resources leaders (Masias and Brown) alleged in the "Memo" that their report was covered up. Yet, the Supreme Court's investigator reasoned that the absence of the investigative report (the one allegedly covered up) meant HR (the people alleging the coverup) determined the complaint was unfounded. Is this credible reasoning? The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Suppressing harassment complaint during supreme court application process Signing accuser to a release Investigation: Both central witnesses were unavailable to the investigator. Both witnesses had signed nondisclosure agreements. Result: Accusation was made Accuser sent away during application process Accuser was demoted, treatment "appalling" Accuser paid to sign an NDA Justice said he heard from Masias that accuser recanted Accusation never revealed to Judicial Nominating Commission Accusation labelled as "Not Substantiated"? ILG Report at p. 20-26 Timeline of Judge's Application for Supreme Court vacancy Application Process Accuser sent away on admin leave On return, Accuser demoted, appalling treatment, signed to NDA Accuser's Experience Timeline The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: No action taken against judge for harassment Despite harassment, judge considered for senior program Investigation: A central witness unavailable to the investigator, had a nondisclosure agreement Result: Judge was disciplined for harassment Judge was approved for senior judge program even though a harasser. "Not Substantiated" ILG Report at p. 27-31 Side story on this charge To Story The judicial department was caught in its false claim that the judge was accepted for the senior judge program in ignorance of the harassment charge and discipline. The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: Two supreme court justices accused of racial discrimination Implication in Memo that justices are not being held accountable Investigation: None Result: Supreme Court specifically barred its investigators (ILG) from looking into this incident ILG Report at p. 8 The allegation from the "Memo": Charge: A chief district judge tried to block investigations in his district Investigation: A central witness whom the judicial department had paid for a nondisclosure agreement was unavailable to the investigator Result: Mixed. Statement made but core allegation of blocking investigations was "Not Substantiated" ILG Report at p. 34

Judge Natalie Chase Judge Chase was censured and resigned after agreeing that she had breached ethical standards relating to using racist language. This case illustrates a challenge to a court system of what to do with cases when decisions affecting people's lives are tainted by the judge's bigotry. Colorado's courts did little to correct those tainted decisions, some of which removed children of color from their families. In her last evaluation, the Judicial Performance Commission unanimously recommended to voters that Judge Chase be retained. Story Story To Story Story Story Story The "court has waved aside the notion that the racial bias of a ... judge deprived a Black defendant of his constitutional rights ..." Story Story Story To Evaluation

How do we hold judges accountable? What mechanisms for accountability are available? Can we do a better job of holding our judges accountable? Perhaps a Request for Evaluation (RFE) made to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding judges' misconduct? Public scrutiny by investigative journalists and opinion columnists? The recent Masias Contract scandal (2019-2023) exposed Colorado's judicial system to scrutiny - and revealed flaws. Our haphazard efforts at accountability encountered dogged resistance from an entrenched bureaucracy that resisted. Colorado Supreme Court Justice Hart told an audience, "Hold us accountable." But are the judges being held accountable? As you read through the examples in press reports of cases that the judiciary obstructed, the victims that were re-victimized by the judiciary, those that lost their jobs or were threatened, ask yourself if you can find any reports of someone in the judiciary being held accountable for this obstruction or this abuse of regular people trying to do the right thing. At the same time, the scandal provided an opportunity to learn how our judicial administration operates and lessons for future scandals. Here is an analysis of accountability for this scandal and the investigation: "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct This is an example of an attempt to hold judges accountable by filing a formal Request for Evaluation (RFE) with the Colorado Commission on Judicial Conduct. As stated in the RFE, the allegations arise out of the Masias Contract Affair and resulting judical scandal of 2019-2023. The RFE is well-documented. Request for Evaluation 2024-10-20 Anonymous RFE 2024-10-20 Appendices to Anonymous RFE

Watch Jon Caldara's interview with former Chief Judge and legal system reformist Dennis Maes. They discuss the legacy of the Colorado judicial scandals. Go to video Go to Go to Go to Go to Go to Go to To Story Go to Go to Go to Go to Caldara: Vote "No" On All Judges Go to Go to To Story

Ethics Enforcement: Commission on Judicial Discipline The Colorado constitution created a commission on judicial discipline and made it responsible for investigating allegations that a judge violated ethics rules. The commission investigates allegations and prosecutes these charges. Membership Commission members are drawn from judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers selected by the governor and the supreme court. Recommendations The commission makes recommendations about discipline to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes the final decision on whether and how to discipline a judge. Secrecy Discipline Commission proceedings are secret. If a judge is found to have violated the ethics rules, their discipline can be public or private. If private, the violation remains a secret. Only if the Supreme Court approves public discipline will it be known to voters. How effective is the discipline process? "For 28 continuous years, there was no public judicial discipline in Colorado." The Judicial Integrity Project commentary Go To Story 2019-2023: The Discipline Commission issued 3 times as many sanctions as in all of the prior half-century. SMART Hearing SMART Hearing Testimony, Discipline Commission, 1/18/23 Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story Go To Story For more information about the process, visit the Discipline Commission's website Link to Discipline Commission Website

Judge Debra Gunkel To Story To Story Recommended for retention by voters To Review