Documents provided by the Colorado Supreme Court revealed in detail the cascading allegations against former Arapahoe County District Court Judge John E. Scipione, who resigned last year and was censured earlier this month for misconduct towards staff and colleagues.

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline initiated multiple investigations against Scipione, beginning after two 18th Judicial District judges and a magistrate met with Chief Judge Michelle Amico to discuss allegedly inappropriate comments Scipione had made to his intern in 2021. Subsequently, Amico heard from Denver’s probate judge about Scipione asking for a “favor” in a personal case involving his father’s estate. Amico reported what she learned to the commission shortly afterward.

Then, when Scipione’s law firm contacted his former clerk to ask her to testify as a character witness, the clerk felt “incredibly uncomfortable” because Scipione once allegedly tried to transform a personal meeting with her into a “date.” The commission filed additional misconduct charges against Scipione as a result of that revelation.

Finally, the commission uncovered an undisclosed relationship Scipione had with a subordinate earlier in his time on the bench.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court censured Scipione on May 6 based on a stipulation he signed admitting to certain violations of the judicial code of conduct and a general outline of his behavior — including using his position to pursue “intimate relationships” with staff and seeking favorable treatment in his father’s probate case.

In its censure decision, the Supreme Court noted the judicial branch had settled two claims by complaining witnesses arising from Scipione’s behavior for $130,000. In part, the settlements illustrated “the severity of Scipione’s misconduct, his pattern of violations, and the harm he caused.”

John S. Gleason, Scipione’s lawyer, told Colorado Politics the settlements happened without his client’s involvement or knowledge.

“I think we’re shocked at the fact that they did not seek any information from Judge Scipione to confirm the truth of the allegations,” he said.

Inappropriate comments, contact

Scipione first received a letter from the judicial discipline commission on Oct. 28, 2021, informing him “several staff members of the 18th Judicial District” reported concerns to Amico.

A summer law student intern alleged Scipione made her uncomfortable by commenting on her appearance, saying ponytails were his “weakness” and asking if she was “trying to make me jealous” by interacting with an older custodian. Scipione also allegedly spoke with the intern about his and his wife’s “swinger lifestyle” and an alleged house party where guests walked around in the nude. Scipione further made the intern uncomfortable by asking for her help with the dating app Tinder.

Another employee suggested the intern speak with retired District Court Judge John L. Wheeler, who in turn advised her to report Scipione. When the intern sought to transfer and work for Magistrate Amanda Bradley, Scipione allegedly said Bradley “didn’t know what she was doing.” Ultimately, Bradley learned some of the details of Scipione’s alleged conduct, as did District Court Judge Eric White.

Bradley, White and Wheeler took their concerns to Amico on Sept. 1.

“We are told that there are staff members who are concerned that your new CJA (court judicial assistant) may have similar experiences involving inappropriate conversations with you,” wrote William J. Campbell, then the executive director of the judicial discipline commission, to Scipione. He added that the incidents described had “an adverse emotional impact on the staff who were interviewed.”

Campbell’s letter also referenced Scipione’s voicemail and email to Denver Probate Court Judge Elizabeth D. Leith, who was handling the case of his late father’s estate. Scipione’s voicemail allegedly asked for a “prompt order” from Leith and his email added he hoped she could “get things expedited for me.”

In its statement of charges issued in January 2022, the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel accused Scipione of sexual harassment, improper contact with a judge and abusing the status of his office.

Gleason, Scipione’s attorney, responded in detail to largely deny the specifics of the allegations. While Scipione admitted generally to discussing his “lifestyle” with his intern, he disputed the intern ever appeared uncomfortable to him. He also admitted to contacting Leith, but denied it amounted to a code of conduct violation. Gleason argued Scipione was “under enormous stress” at the time from various family emergencies, illnesses and his father’s death.

“The Commission can be assured that the Judge has learned from this experience and understands the importance of always maintaining appropriate boundaries,” Gleason wrote.

The Supreme Court subsequently appointed three special masters to handle the case: Chief Judge Susan Blanco of the Eighth Judicial District, Judge Lindsay VanGilder of the First Judicial District and retired Justice Alex J. Martinez.

However, in mid-May, before a scheduled hearing, Scipione signed a proposed stipulation agreeing to a public censure and large portions of the allegations against him. Scipione’s lawyer also asked to vacate the hearing, alluding to “new facts and circumstances.” Specifically, there was a “new investigation” attorney regulators “failed or refused to disclose” until the day after he agreed to be disciplined.

A new front opens up

Two months later, the commission filed new charges based on a report from Scipione’s law clerk from 2019, who he had enlisted as a witness for his intended disciplinary hearing. The former clerk allegedly “felt incredibly uncomfortable” testifying and “did not believe she could give complete and truthful testimony” without revealing her own experience with Scipione.

The clerk alleged she and Scipione met at a restaurant in the Denver Tech Center in August 2021, ostensibly to discuss a high-profile case the two had worked on, plus career-related topics. Instead, Scipione allegedly told the clerk that “in his house everyone knew his meeting … was a ‘date.'” Scipione’s wife allegedly gave him “permission to date” the clerk and she was “available by phone or FaceTime to respond to any concerns” the clerk may have about dating Scipione.

Three months later, a paralegal with Scipione’s lawyer contacted her as part of the original disciplinary investigation into Scipione. The clerk notified the judicial discipline commission of her allegations in mid-May 2022, six days before Scipione signed the censure stipulation and attempted to vacate the disciplinary hearing.

The commission then asked the Supreme Court to suspend Scipione, now alleging it learned in mid-July about additional “courthouse rumors” Scipione had a sexual relationship with a judicial assistant from 2013-2014 when he was a magistrate. Scipione did not disclose the relationship as required by judicial policy. The discipline commission noted it had located the assistant and she confirmed the relationship.

“Judge Scipione continues to supervise at least one younger female subordinate employee,” wrote Christopher S.P. Gregory, the new executive director of the discipline commission. “Reasonable risks of imminent and irreparable harm exist through Judge Scipione’s continuing supervision of younger female subordinate employees who are similarly situated.”

The Supreme Court suspended Scipione with pay on Aug. 3 and later consolidated both pending disciplinary cases. Documents provided to Colorado Politics by the Supreme Court showed Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright and Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. indicated they were now recused, despite participating in earlier orders. The court’s clerk had no further information why the two justices’ participation had ceased.

In response to the ballooning allegations, Scipione asserted he had a medical or mental health condition preventing him from assisting in his defense, which automatically paused the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court appointed retired Court of Appeals Judge James S. Casebolt as the special master overseeing the new disability portion of the case.

Two court-appointed mental health experts and one court-appointed cardiologist evaluated Scipione, concluding he was able to participate in his defense after all. Casebolt recommended the disciplinary proceedings resume in December 2022.

Gleason, Scipione’s attorney, said Scipione had legitimate medical issues that, when combined with the personal stresses around the time of the disciplinary proceedings, backed up his claim of disability.

“I think if you read his reviews, he was an outstanding judge,” Gleason told Colorado Politics.

Weeks later, the commission informed the Supreme Court Scipione agreed to resign immediately and receive a censure. He stepped down on Jan. 19.

‘Abusing his position’

The case continued, however, over the costs Scipione would owe for the disciplinary proceedings. In June 2023, the judicial discipline commission alerted the special masters that the Office of the State Court Administrator had disclosed a $45,000 settlement in response to a civil rights claim stemming from Scipione’s conduct.

The office indicated the 18th Judicial District would pay the full amount. Previously, the district also paid $85,000 for another claim, with the state’s risk management office reimbursing the 18th Judicial District for half that amount.

The commission believed the revelation “highlights the severity of Judge Scipione’s misconduct and the damage that this misconduct has done (a) to the integrity and reputation of the judiciary, and (b) to his judicial district specifically,” it wrote on June 22.

Scipione’s attorney asked the special masters not to consider the settlements, arguing it was “not appropriate for Respondent to be punished for decisions made by the Judicial Department, without any ability for Respondent to participate or defend himself.”

In an Aug. 13 order, Blanco, the judge who presided over the special masters’ panel, noted the stipulated discipline meant they ultimately had heard no evidence and could not conclude Scipione’s claim of a disability was frivolous. Blanco wrote that the special masters rejected the commission’s request for Scipione to reimburse $120,719 in costs for the totality of the proceedings, but agreed Scipione should pay back $51,189 in attorney fees for the disciplinary portion.

“Collectively there is a pattern that shows Judge Scipione abused his power for self-gain,” she wrote. “Though the interests may differ, ranging from sexual or romantic to family business and whatever pleasure is taken from speaking ill of others, they are all very personal to him and were all pursued abusing his position as a judicial officer and occurred in multiple occasions over time.”

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation in its May 6 censure.