Montezuma County Judge Ian MacLaren will face a 90 day unpaid suspension and the Colorado Adjudicative Board will issue a public censure condemning his actions violating judicial conduct rules, ending the months long misconduct case.
MacLaren, who serves in the 22nd Judicial District, acknowledged in the July 20 stipulation for public censure and suspension that he maintained inappropriate communications with a former The Journal reporter regarding a diversion hearing he scheduled, made improper comments about a defendant during the hearing and unintentionally behaved in a manner amounting to abuse of his position as a judge in a ticketing matter.
On Monday, the judicial panel presiding over MacLaren’s disciplinary case accepted the disciplinary measures agreed to by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline and MacLaren as outlined by the two parties in the stipulation. The panel will administer his suspension before Aug. 31.
The complaint filed by the commission in September alleged MacLaren’s actions compromised his integrity and exhibited “poor judgment not befitting a judge.” The commission initially sought his removal from the position which he was appointed to in November 2024.
The commission requested a formal hearing to review three instances involving MacLaren and assembled a three-member panel of Judge Vincente Vigil, attorney Jeff Chostner and legal consultant Jeannie Valliere from Colorado’s Independent Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board to preside over the case.
The first allegation pertained to MacLaren’s behavior in a case involving former Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Tom Burris. Burris was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly failing to report claims of an inappropriate sexual relationship between a student and teacher at the high school. It was later determined that no sexual abuse occurred between the student and the teacher.
In a diversion agreement made between Burris and the 22nd judicial district attorney in February 2025, Burris was required to complete mandatory reporter training and commit no crimes for six months for the criminal case to be dismissed.
MacLaren presided over the case but was not privy to the district attorney’s investigation. MacLaren scheduled a hearing for Feb. 25, 2025. He texted The Journal reporter Cameryn Cass, saying, “You might wanna take a quick glance at tomorrow’s county court docket ;-)” and “Off the record, 1:30 might be a good time to show up!”
MacLaren’s representatives, in their response to the initial complaint by the commission, said he never asked or encouraged Cass to attend the hearing; rather, he simply provided the date and time with no further information of his intentions. In the stipulation he acknowledged these communications were inappropriate.
At the hearing, MacLaren criticized the diversion agreement calling it a “slap on the wrist,” saying he would reject it if it was within his authority.
“Though Judge MacLaren, on several occasions during the hearing, characterized the charges against Mr. Burris as ‘allegations,’ which are by definition unproven, Judge MacLaren’s above comments implied that he believed Mr. Burris to be guilty,” read the stipulation, which added that MacLaren recognized his comments appeared to show bias against Burris.
The subsequent article written by Cass generated praise for MacLaren and criticism toward Burris and the district attorney. Facebook comments responding to the story published on The Journal’s Facebook page, stated “I love how honest this judge is!” and “Burris needs to be FIRED!”
Cass, who is no longer affiliated with The Journal, also secretly photographed Burris in the courtroom, which is prohibited without the judge’s written consent.
Cass sent MacLaren the published story on the hearing with the prohibited picture. He replied, “I like that picture. Great article! You captured things perfectly!”
The stipulation also details a “ticket fixing” case. In June 2025, while under evaluation for the Burris hearing, MacLaren was pulled over twice in two days on McPhee Reservoir for his expired boating registration stickers. According to the stipulation, the second time, he told Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers “he did not have time” to register his boat “due to his occupation as a judge.”
CPW officers worried that ticketing MacLaren might impact cases presided over by MacLaren in which CPW officers acted as witnesses.
“Judge MacLaren admits that the officers’ hesitation illustrates why judges should never raise their status as a judge during an encounter with law enforcement,” reads the stipulation.
MacLaren also told CPW officers that ticket matters often are resolved in his courtroom which the stipulation said “could be reasonably interpreted as a reminder to these CPW officers that their cases often were resolved in Judge MacLaren’s courtroom, which is exactly why they hesitated to ticket him to begin with.”
The commission found MacLaren in violation of canon rules stating that a judge should behave in a way promoting public confidence in their independence and integrity and should not use their position to advance their personal interests.
MacLaren continued to sit as the Montezuma County Court Judge after the initial September 2025 complaint was filed.
“Judge MacLaren cares deeply about Montezuma County and the people he serves,” MacLaren’s legal representative wrote in a statement to The Journal. “He leads with integrity and runs his courtroom the same way and is relieved the facts revealed he was not dishonest. He looks forward to continuing to serve the people of the 22nd Judicial District, and to being a strong, sound, and loyal servant of the law, with the humility and respect they deserve.”
The Journal requested comment from the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline but had not received a response as of Wednesday.
avanderveen@the-journal.com
