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 . . .

Amendment H was placed on the 2024 ballot by the state General Assembly. It was an integral part of a package to reform Colorado's judicial discipline system. The legislation arose out of a judicial corruptiuon scandal which took place between 2019 and 2023. Some reforms were implemented by way of amendments to state stautes. Other fixes required changes to the Colorado Constitution. While still other reforms are being made by changes to the Rule for the Colorado Commission foe Judicial Discipline. Here is what was changed by Amendment H. Proposition H passed overwhelmingly at the November 4, 2024 general election. 73% voters voted in favor of passage and amended Colorado Constitution, Art. VI, Sect. 23 amended process by which judges may be disciplined and removed. Prop. H required re-writing of the rules for Colo. Comm. on Judicial Discipline. Changes are currently being made to the rules governing how judges are disciplined. We have a section below regarding the Rulemaking Committee and its progress. Amendment H - Official analysis Amendment H - Text Amend H Amendment H Prop. H required re-writing of the Rules of the Colo. Comm. on Judicial Discipline. March 19, 2025 a rulemaking committee was established and announced the beginning of its rulemaking process. On July 29, 2025 the Rulemaking Committee announced the first of its amended and new rules, i.e. Rules 3.6 (establishing a Code of Conduct for Adjudicative Board Members, 34 regarding Temporary Suspension),and 37(e) (regarding with Stipulated Resolution of Formal Proceedings). On September 10, 2025 the Rulemaking Committee announced interim Rules 35 (Resolution of Informal Proceedings or Other Actions) and 36 (Resolution of Formal Proceedings) As is customary with the rulemaking process, notice was given that the committee would accept comments from the public about the proposed rule changes. As of the October 3, 2025 hearing on public comments the committee had received comments from at least two individuals. One comment came from David Dean Smith. Available at this link: Another series of comments came from Christopher S.P. Gregory, Esq. Mr. Gregory’s comments, although received by the committee do not appear to have been included in the written record. They are available below: His comments also relate to a Request for Evaluation he has previously made to the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Mr. Gregory is an attorney who formerly served as Executive Director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Mr. Gregory’s comments consist of a series of objections and requests. He states that the composition of the rulemaking committee itself is merely a perpetuation of a 6-year pattern of corruption within the Colorado Judicial Department which produced the Masias Contract Affair and Judicial Scandal of 2019-2023. Specifically he calls for: the formation of a conflict-free special adjudicative special tribunal; an independent investigation by a special assistant attorney general; a legislative referral to conflict-free counsel; the dissolution the current rulemaking committee; and, that there be a comprehensive revision of the Rules for the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Comment of David Dean Smith Link to Rulemaking Committee CCJD New Judicial Discipline Rule-Making Committee Forms Comment by Gregory 2025-08-25 Comment by Gregory 2025-09-12 Comment by Gregory 2025-09-12a Rulemaking Committee Links to Public Comments on Rules Colorado media outlets urged voters to vote YES in favor of Amendment H. Link to Editorial Link to Guest Opinion Link to Editorial Link to Endorsement Link to Endorsement Link to Denver Post story

The "Toxic" Culture Depended on Non-disclosure Agreements and Payoffs at the Colorado Judiciary Both the RCT and ILG investigation reports described at length the toxic culture at the Colorado judiciary and how employees were bullied and bribed into silence about misconduct. Press interviews add to the picture of a culture that condones misconduct by silencing complainants at every turn. Read about it below. The RCT report describes the Judicial Department's practice of silencing complainants at pages 38-40. RCT Report The ILG report describes the Judicial Department's workplace culture, at pages 76 et seq. ILG Report Story Story *But note that the State Auditor and RCT reports revealed that the Judicial Department manipulated its accounting so that payments would not be shown. To Story RCT's Report

Merit Selection System Theory & Practice In the 1960's, Colorado citizens amended the state constitution to do away with political elections as the system for selecting our judges and holding them accountable to the rule of law. We replaced elections with the "Merit Selection System," also known as the Missouri Plan. Our Merit Selection System has three components of accountability for judges, the Nomination Commissions, the Performance Commissions, and the Discipline Commission. Sixty years later, the question for Colorado citizens is how well our system of accountability for judges is working. We want a system that gives Colorado excellent judges. Nominating Commissions Start Now Performance Commissions Start Now Discipline Commission Start Now

Constitutional Amendment H HCR 23-1001 Related Reforms HB 23-1205 Go To Go To Go To Constitutional Amendment to Raise Judicial Retention Threshold Advances Go To

The Colorado Judiciary's "Culture of Silence" The judicial department's culture of silence was well documented in the RCT and ILG reports. The following sections give specific examples of how people have been kept quiet. NDA "Toxic Environment" Silencing the Watchdogs CCASA Victim Senator Pete Lee Investigation of "Memo" Allegations Retaliation Against Staff Masias Affair Whistleblowers

Justice Gabriel and the "appalling" treatment of his accuser To Story It is difficult to share the complicated facts regarding the allegations made against Justice Gabriel. But, the surrounding circumstances raise legitimate questions. In the Masias-Brown Memo, the Justice was alleged to have used his influence to suppress harassment allegations made against him. Today, even the record of contemporaneous news reporting of the story is hard to locate. In this section, we provide the pieces that are still available. You decide if the way this allegation was handled supports or undermines the Memo's claim that the allegation was suppressed to protect the Justice. We start with the allegation made in the Memo's third bullet point: Link to news reporting about the Memo Full Text of Memo The allegation is that Masias, one of the authors of the Memo and former director of human resources for the Judicial Department, suppressed a misconduct allegation against Judge Gabriel to keep his Supreme Court application clean. Allegedly, Masias did this by silencing the accuser and paying her for a non-disclosure agreement The story broke identifying Justice Gabriel as the judge accused in the Memo on February 26, 2021. But that news report from the Denver Post seems to have been removed - and is now very hard to find. But, here is a link to the story -- as long as it lasts. To Story While it Lasts In 2023, the Judicial Department's lawyers (Investigations Law Group) declared that the allegations against Justice Gabriel were "unfounded." The Denver Post removed the original story about the alleged suppression and replaced it with a statement. Statement by Denver Post But was the allegation that Masias suppressed the misconduct claim to protect Justice Gabriel invalidated by the lawyer's report? ILG Report Link to ILG Report Important to Realize While the ILG investigators were selected by an independent panel, nonetheless, they were retained, paid, and controlled by the Judiciary . ILG did not interview the law clerk who accused Justice Gabriel. Neither did ILG interview Mindy Masias, the person who alleged that she suppressed the complaint. ILG approached both of them, but neither talked to ILG. The judicial department had paid each of them for agreements to remain silent. Masias, as director of Human Resources, received the harassment accusation on September 12th. HR immediately interviewed the accuser and a co-clerk. ILG Report, Page 21. Masias waited until September 15th to interview the judge. As a result, the interview was after the judge submitted his application for the Supreme Court on September 13th. ILG Report, Page 22. The interview of the accuser was recorded. The interview of the judge was not. ILG only had the judge's account of what was said. ILG Report, Page 21. Immediately after her accusation interview on September 12th, the accuser was sent home on "administrative leave" ILG Report, Page 21. 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 No one could explain to ILG investigators why the accuser was placed on administrative leave. ILG Report, Page 21. The accuser was not brought back to work at the court from administrative leave until "a day or two" after the accused judge had completed the Supreme Court application process and been interviewed for the position. ILG Report, Page 22. After being allowed to return from administrative leave, the accuser was "penalized by putting her off in a corner." ILG Report, Page 23. The Judicial Branch's lawyer said she was "appalled" by the treatment of Justice Gabriel's accuser and called it "traumatizing." ILG Report, Page 23. The accuser would later assert she was the victim of retaliation. The Judicial Branch would settle this claim with the accuser. ILG Report, Page 22-23. The accuser would be paid for the rest of her term but not be required to work. As part of the deal, the Judicial Department required she sign a non-disclosure agreement. ILG Report, Pages 23-24. When interviewed by ILG, Justice Gabriel reportedly claimed that Masias had told him a few days into the accuser's administrative leave that she withdrew her accusations. ILG Report, Page 21. Bound by non-disclosure agreements, neither the accuser nor Masias is available to confirm (or deny) Justice Gabriel's version of events. The 2021 report by the Denver Post , has now been removed from parts of the internet. The body responsible for selecting nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies never learned of the accusation Justice Gabriel was not successful in his first Supreme Court application, but he was appointed to a later vacancy. Was the Memo's original claim of covering this up to protect the judge "unfounded"?

Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal in Colorado. ColoradoJudges.org. Coverup allegations Supreme Court Boatright Our Content This website is a gathering point for information and materials from past judicial scandals - and suggestions for how to mitigate and prevent them in the future. Colorado has approximately 350 state court judges at any one time. Our collection of "cases & controversies" relates to a small, but important, segment of those judges. Our goal is to facilitate your access to the professional journalism available about your Colorado judges. Colorado has a strong tradition of a robust press corps that holds the powerful to account. We have superb media outlets like The Denver Post, The Denver Gazette, The Colorado Sun and Colorado Politics staffed by skilled professionals like David Migoya, Shelly Bradbury, and Michael Karlik who specialize in understanding and covering our judicial system. However, once a story runs, it can be hard to find unless you already know what you are looking for. We also have extensive legislative reports with important information that would otherwise gather dust in obscure archives. ColoradoJudges.org brings these well-researched and sourced materials together in one place that is easily accessible to members of the public. We include links to the stories cited through their original sources. As a result, you may sometimes have to access the original through a paywall. Who We Are ColoradoJudges.org does not solicit or accept funds or advertising. The curator and webmaster for ColoradoJudges.org is Alan Higbie. Email contact : info.colojudges.org@gmail.com He is a retired trial lawyer who practiced for 42 years in Colorado and Alaska. He served for 8 years on a local Colorado judicial performance commission, during which time he became familiar with the merit selection and retention process. The Masias Contract Scandal caught his attention. As he peeled back one layer after another, it, unfortunately, looked more and more as if the administration of our judicial system was corrupt. Alan Higbie is the author of "Preparing for the Next Scandal: Valuable Insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal." He took a special interest in the circumstances surrounding the flawed indictment of his former state legislator, Sen. Pete Lee. "Preparing for the Next Scandal - Valuable insights from the 2019-2023 Judicial Corruption Scandal" About ColoradoJudges.org Quality news about judges. Where you want it. When you want it. At ColoradoJudges.org, we believe transparent access to information about our court system is crucial to preserving the rule of law in a democracy. We are dedicated to helping the public access trustworthy and valuable information that can help you understand the legal system and make informed decisions. Be sure to see our Recent Developments page to Recent Developments

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.