Colorado’s judicial reform measure, Amendment H, promised transparency and accountability. But its delayed implementation has left a critical gap in Montezuma County Judge Ian MacLaren’s misconduct case: how to prepare for a hearing without clear rules.
MacLaren’s attorney and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline are debating which framework should govern discovery and scheduling as they prepare for a hearing.
With no Amendment H rules in place to guide prehearing discovery, Judge Vincente Vigil – who chairs the new Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board overseeing the case – said his panel will “follow the spirit” of the old rules.
The choice of rules matters because it affects timing. Previous standards required a hearing within 91 days of the at-issue date. Vigil acknowledged meeting that deadline would be difficult but said the board still intends to honor the old rules’ intent.
| Name | Refers to | Role in case |
| Ian MacLaren (respondent) | 22nd Judicial District Judge in Montezuma County | Judge being accused of ethical breaches |
| Kevin McGreevy | MacLaren’s attorney | Provides legal counsel to MacLaren |
| Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (complainant) | Agency addressing complaints of alleged judicial misconduct | Legal team seeking MacLaren’s removal from the bench |
| Jeffrey Walsh | Special Counsel to Colorado Commission | Advocates for Commission’s stance against MacLaren |
| Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board (after Amendment H passed in November 2024) | District judge, volunteer lawyer and volunteer citizen together conducts hearing over case | Decides on MacLaren’s case |
| Vincent Vigil | Judge on Adjudicative Board | Decides on MacLaren’s case |
MacLaren’s counsel argued in a Nov. 15 motion that applying past rules to a case management order could violate the 22nd District judge’s due process rights and hinder the defense’s preparation. Instead, the filing urged using Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure going forward.
The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, which started proceedings against MacLaren, agreed to use civil rules in a Nov. 21 response, but said a case management order could use pre-Amendment H rules and that a hearing should be scheduled quickly.
The commission added that both parties could craft a unique joint case management order, which could then be altered as desired by the adjudicative board.
In early September, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline released a complaint against MacLaren, accusing the judge of misusing his power to hold a performative hearing and avoid a boating ticket, then of lying during an inquiry.
Amendment H, a statewide ballot measure passed by 73% of voters in November 2024, opened the doors to greater transparency when judges are disciplined in cases of alleged wrongdoing and removed the Colorado Supreme Court from that process.
Colorado’s constitution was amended to establish the new authority, the three-person Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board consisting of a judge, a lawyer and a citizen.
The constitutional amendment is still being adopted, leaving questions like the timing of prehearing discovery for judicial discipline cases open-ended.
What guides discovery is important because it ultimately lays out a timeline for the case. The Commission has said that for the sake of public interest, they want MacLaren’s hearing to happen sooner rather than later.
What framework gets adopted for MacLaren’s future proceedings will ultimately determine whether the judge retains his seat.
Attempts to reach MacLaren and his legal counsel were unsuccessful.
Anne Mangiardi, executive director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Discipline, said the commission could not offer an comment beyond their motion.
The proceedings against MacLaren – appointed to his seat by Gov. Jared Polis in October 2024 – came about after the judge called a diversion agreement reached for Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 Superintendent Harry (Tom) Burris a “slap on the wrist.”
The complaint alleges that MacLaren scheduled a hearing intentionally to criticize Burris, who was cited for misdemeanor failure to report an allegation of child abuse.
MacLaren presumed the superintendent to be guilty, invited news media to advance his own self-image, and in a separate matter, used his position as a judge to sway Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers from giving him a ticket for an expired boat registration, the complaint alleges.
Additionally, the commission alleges that when asked about the matters, MacLaren misrepresented the truth.
“Judges are guardians of the honesty and integrity that are the foundation for the public’s confidence in our justice system,” the complaint reads. “Put simply, Judge McLaren (sic) can’t credibly swear in witnesses to ‘tell the truth’ if he can’t do the same. Given this, the Commission on Judicial Discipline, regretfully, is compelled to seek removal.”
Judge Ian MacLaren is alleged to have violated multiple ethical canon rules:
Canon Rule 1.2 states in relevant part: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Canon Rule 1.3 states in relevant part: A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Canon Rule 2.2 states in relevant part: A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.
Canon Rule 2.3(A) states in relevant part: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
Canon Rule 2.4 states in relevant part: (A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
Canon Rule 2.6(A) states: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
Canon Rule 2.16(A) states: A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.
Writing in response to the proceedings, MacLaren’s counsel admitted to some allegations on the judge’s behalf, pointing to his “imperfect decisions both on and off the bench.”
The response denied other portions of the complaint, saying the commission “overreaches on facts and makes incorrect assumptions and conclusions in a heavy-handed attempt to remove this new judge.”
As MacLaren’s case begins, a disagreement has emerged over how to address Amendment H. The ballot measure is too new for parties to clearly know how it applies.
Parties are still deciding on prehearing discovery – the phase that sets when and how the hearing will occur, its length and whether it will be virtual or in person. The discovery phase determines what evidence can be used in court and gives parties notice to prepare arguments.
Parties are still deciding on prehearing discovery — the phase that sets when and how the hearing will occur, its length and whether it will be virtual or in person. The discovery phase determines what evidence can be used in court and gives parties notice to prepare arguments.
In other words, the old rules would guide the case, Vigil said, inviting both parties to file briefs in response.
Amendment H was intended to create a “rulemaking committee” to set standards for such cases, but, as MacLaren’s legal counsel wrote in a Nov. 15 response, that committee “has yet to promulgate any interim rules governing discovery processes and/or hearing timelines in matters before the judicial discipline adjudicative board.”
MacLaren’s legal counsel asked the board to apply Colorado’s Rules of Civil Procedure, a legal framework for civil cases, to govern discovery and other proceedings.
To not do so would “run the significant risk of violating the Respondent’s procedural due process rights and potentially undermine the Respondent’s ability to adequately prepare a defense in this matter,” wrote MacLaren attorney Kevin McGreevy.
Going by the former rules for judicial discipline would be out of line with the intent of Amendment H, McGreevy wrote.
The Commission, in contrast, disputed MacLaren’s argument in a Nov. 21 motion.
“If the Panel deems it appropriate to create a Case Management Order that ‘follows the spirit’ of the old Rules of Judicial Discipline, it can and should do exactly that,” wrote Jeffrey Walsh, the commission’s Special Counsel.
“To do so would be to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, not to ‘circumvent’ them, as Judge MacLaren suggests.”
The commission said civil code provisions allow judges to craft case management orders case by case.
Both parties agreed that Colorado’s civil case framework can guide the case, the commission said.
“The Commission nevertheless asks that a hearing be set as soon as possible and asks that needless discovery disputes not be allowed to cause further delays,” their motion reads.
“This is not a complicated case. The facts are largely undisputed. The number of witnesses is relatively small. The number of documents and exhibits to be admitted at hearing is expected to also be small. Given this, the scope of prehearing discovery need not be broad or complicated.”
