Misconduct allegations against judges jumped by more than 38% between 2022 and 2023, with almost a dozen complaints stemming from last year’s proceedings to disqualify Donald Trump from the presidential primary ballot, according to a report from the state’s judicial discipline body.

The summary report from the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline also noted an unidentified judge privately agreed to resign after potentially committing a crime.

The commission’s membership includes judges, attorneys and non-attorneys who oversee the investigation of misconduct complaints, known formally as requests for evaluation. In any given year, the large majority of requests are dismissed because they do not pertain to the commission’s jurisdiction.

For example, almost 50% of complaints in 2023 fell into the category of disputes over judges’ rulings — which are mostly handled through the appeals process — and nearly 7% were “sovereign citizen/generalized conspiracy” complaints.

The number of requests submitted in 2023 was substantially higher than in previous years: 344 complaints last year compared with 249 in 2022, the previous high-water mark.

Eleven of the requests pertained to a single case: Anderson v. Griswold, in which the Colorado Supreme Court concluded in December that Trump was constitutionally ineligible to hold office for having engaged in insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision earlier this month, clarifying states cannot disqualify federal candidates.

Seventy-three requests, which remained active at the end of 2023, related to The Denver Gazette’s revelations that dozens of judges failed to follow the law and file financial disclosure reports annually with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Although judicial discipline investigations are largely confidential, the year-end report acknowledged the handful of instances in which judges received public rebukes for their misconduct:

• Former Chief Justice Nathan B. Coats received a censure for mishandling the award of a contract to a judicial branch employee who was facing termination for her own misconduct

• Former District Court Judge Mark D. Thompson of Summit County received a censure for being verbally abusive toward two attorneys days after he returned from a suspension for his prior misconduct

• Former District Court Judge Lance P. Timbreza received a censure for inappropriate sexual contact with another lawyer

The report also noted two instances of private discipline handed down to judges whose identities were shielded. One trial judge waged a campaign of retaliation against his judicial assistant and agreed to resign after admitting to his misconduct. Colorado Politics previously identified the judge as Robert W. Kiesnowski Jr. of Adams County. The state Supreme Court censured him publicly earlier this month for committing more misconduct before he left the bench.

Another judge received a private censure and resigned for “engaging in an ongoing romantic relationship with an individual who the judge knew to be an illegal sex worker.” While the judge disputed paying for sex, they did pay for the sex worker’s living expenses.

The unnamed judge also gave the sex worker an amount of marijuana that “appeared to have possibly exceeded Colorado’s legal possession limits,” the report described. The judge admitted to violating the rule that judges must comply with the law, among other violations.

Under the rules of judicial discipline, the commission can take a variety of actions on its own, from dismissing the complaint outright to arranging for a judge’s resignation in the face of misconduct. If the commission deems the allegations inappropriate for private discipline, it may commence formal proceedings, involving a trial before a panel of judges and a disciplinary recommendation to the Supreme Court.

The most severe penalty is a judge’s removal from office, although judges who have already stepped down can only face censure after the fact.

The judicial discipline commission has been the subject of recent reforms to enhance transparency and independence from the judiciary. In 2022, the commission received funding from the legislature and began to contract on its own for investigative services. 

This November, voters will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment to increase public access to records in formal disciplinary proceedings and to clarify the role of the Supreme Court in misconduct cases.

The commission has also encountered a series of hiccups in recent months. The commission’s then-executive director, Christopher Gregory, received a chilly reception from lawmakers when testifying about a proposal to make it easier for retired judges to continue handling cases on a part-time contract basis even if they have a disciplinary history. The commission subsequently removed Gregory from his position for reasons that were unclear.

Among other data in the commission’s 2023 report, nearly 37% of complaints arose from the three most populous judicial districts: the 18th (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties), the Fourth (El Paso and Teller counties) and the Second (Denver). The overwhelming majority of complaints, 89%, were filed against trial judges. Five complaints were filed against Court of Appeals judges and 11 against the Supreme Court for the Anderson case.