Last year, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline commenced more formal disciplinary cases against judges than it had in the prior 12 years total, according to the commission’s annual report, while at the same time issuing relatively few corrective actions.

The commission’s 2022 report indicated it received 249 complaints, officially known as requests for evaluation of judicial conduct (RFE). It is the highest number in recent history, although, as is the case every year, the vast majority of RFEs resulted in dismissal because they did not actually pertain to judicial misconduct.

In fact, the largest category of complaints, nearly 53%, related to judges’ rulings, which are handled through the appeals process, with additional RFEs that were critical of judges’ performance.

“The disruption of the judicial branch’s management of hearings and trials during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted several complaints about delays and the occasional difficulties in connecting with remote hearings by video and in managing the proceedings,” the report stated. “These situations were unavoidable and did not involve judicial misconduct.”

In all, the commission took four corrective actions against judges, including one that resulted in public discipline. The number was a significant decrease from the 10 actions taken in 2021, and the lowest since 2017.

At the same time, two unnamed judges decided not to stand for retention in 2022 after being the subject of complaints, and an additional two judges resigned in the face of disciplinary proceedings.

The commission, which was created when Colorado voters adopted a merit-based selection system for judges, screens RFEs, investigates allegations, and decides whether to impose discipline privately or to recommend public discipline. Recent legislation has provided the commission with independent funding and its own investigative staff, and voters next year will decide whether to amend the constitution to increase transparency and diminish the Supreme Court’s control over the disciplinary process.

The grounds for judicial discipline include willful misconduct – even if it is not related to a judge’s duties – as well as a judge’s persistent failure to carry out their job responsibilities or their “intemperance.” The commission noted that allegations related to attorneys or law enforcement are not within its jurisdiction, nor are the complaints of “sovereign citizens” who believe they are not subject to Colorado law.

“Between 2022 and 2023, the Commission authorized the filing of formal proceedings in five separate cases,” the commission wrote, referring to serious cases that can culminate in a judge’s removal from office. “This number exceeds the total number of formal proceedings authorized in the preceding 12 years.”

The only public discipline handed down last year was the censure of former Summit County District Court Judge Mark D. Thompson, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after allegedly threatening his stepson with a semiautomatic rifle. Thompson received an unpaid suspension along with his censure. Months later, he resigned.

The commission issued a private censure for a “substantial breach” of judicial conduct standards to a judge because of his extreme delay in ruling on a “relatively straight forward motion.” The judge retired while disciplinary proceedings were underway. Although the commission did not name the judge, it disclosed it had previously issued a private reprimand to the same judge under similar circumstances, an apparent reference to former Denver District Court Judge Ross B.H. Buchanan.

Two judges saw complaints against them dismissed, but with concerns from the commission. One judge in rural Colorado allegedly was not a registered voter in their jurisdiction at the time they took office. The commission noted there was ambiguity in the law, and that the judge had changed their voter registration by the time of the complaint.

The second unnamed judge recorded an informal interaction in his courtroom between attorneys and staff, which included a discussion of pop culture, child rearing and specific judicial-related topics.

“The subject judge was cautioned about having such an informal conversation on the record, which created unnecessary transcription expenses and raised the possibility of poor public perceptions of the judicial process and the subject judge’s ability to maintain proper decorum while on the record,” the commission wrote.

Most judges who came under investigation were white and male. District court judges were the subject of 75% of RFEs, while appellate judges represented only 4% of the total. There was one complaint against a Supreme Court justice, which likely refers to former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats, who is facing a censure for mismanaging the award of a multimillion-dollar contract.

Nearly one in five complaints arose from the Fourth Judicial District, which encompasses El Paso and Teller counties. However, none of those RFEs resulted in discipline. The commission advanced the largest number of complaints – three – for the 18th Judicial District in Denver’s suburbs, which is the most populous jurisdiction in the state.