In an unusually detailed and strongly worded report, Colorado’s judicial discipline body made clear on Friday that dozens of judges broke the law by failing to file financial disclosure statements on time, but that not every instance merited discipline in light of related behavior from the nation’s highest court.

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline disclosed it had admonished 27 judges, to some degree, out of 48 who did not properly submit their disclosures. The commission defended its decision not to impose public discipline on any judge based on the circumstances of each case, and cited reports of U.S. Supreme Court justices failing to report the entirety of their own personal finances.

“Especially against the backdrop of national publicity about the lavish and unreported gifts to Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas by wealthy political donors, this situation with Colorado’s judiciary created a generalized appearance of impropriety,” the commission wrote. Compared to the justices, however, “no case considered by the Commission was at all similar.”

The failure to file financial disclosure reports has been the subject of a series of investigative reports by The Denver Gazette, which the commission’s document also cited.  

Despite law, one in six Colorado judges doesn't have financial disclosures filed, some for years

Judicial ethics experts found the commission’s narrative intriguing.

“I think that the commission’s statement is extraordinary,” said Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal trial judge and executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute. “Typically, state judicial performance organizations seek to avoid political controversy; they tend to be very measured in their public comments, with a goal both of providing useful guidance to judges and of assuring the public that they take their responsibilities seriously. Here, there’s no question that the ethical issues surrounding the two justices have affected public confidence in the judiciary generally, and the commission apparently saw a need to acknowledge that.”

Gabe Roth, director of the reform advocacy group Fix the Court, said he could understand why Colorado’s disciplinary body would use the Supreme Court’s conduct as a reference point.

“The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court represent jurists at all levels across the country, and fair or not, when the nine or a subset of the nine acts unethically, it tarnishes public faith in all judicial institutions,” he said.

Increase in complaints

The commission’s year-end report for 2024 was released far earlier than usual and ahead of next week’s scheduled judicial oversight hearings before the legislature. In the past year, the entity hired a new executive director, Anne Mangiardi, and expanded to five full-time staff.

The report noted there were 368 requests for evaluation — the formal name for complaints — in 2024, more than double the total from 2014 and a 6% increase from 2023.

As is typically the case, the vast majority of requests were dismissed outright because they did not appear to address judicial misconduct. For example, roughly half of the requests pertained to judges’ rulings, which must go through the appeals process rather than judicial discipline.

The commission noted there were three instances of public discipline last year imposed on trial judges who have since resigned: D. Brett Woods of the Denver Juvenile Court, John E. Scipione of the 18th Judicial District and Robert W. Kiesnowski Jr. of the 17th Judicial District.

In addition, one unnamed judge was suspended with pay during their still-ongoing disciplinary proceeding.

In total, the commission investigated 65 requests for evaluation. The bulk of the report discussed in detail a specific category of complaints: judges failing to file their annual financial disclosures with the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Public discipline not justified

The Denver Gazette reported in 2023 that dozens of judges did not have their personal financial disclosure statements on file for one or more years. The number included several semi-retired senior judges, almost none of whom filed a statement since leaving full-time service. The Judicial Department responded by training its members on the need to comply with the law.

The revelations came against “the backdrop of widespread national media attention about U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito failing to report lavish gifts from wealthy political donors,” the commission wrote. Alito, for his part, has denied any appearance of impropriety, while Thomas referred to the reports as “nastiness and the lies.“

The commission indicated it asked judges identified in The Denver Gazette’s reporting to address their alleged violations. It opted against opening a disciplinary case for judges whose appointment dates created an ambiguity about their duty to file in a given year, and also senior judges.

State trains judges about financial disclosure requirements weeks after dozens found not complying with law

The commission noted senior judges received guidance from the State Court Administrator’s Office that they only needed to submit disclosures to the Judicial Department, not the secretary of state. The legislature has since changed the law to clarify the disclosure requirement for new appointees.

In total, the commission dismissed 15 cases with an “expression of concern,” gave a private reprimand to 11 judges and privately censured a final judge.

Justifying its approach, the commission explained that it imposed private discipline on those judges who “missed a high number” of filings. It also found “no evidence exists” that any judges inaccurately or dishonestly reported their finances, or that they presided over a case with personal financial implications.

“Given this, the Commission did not feel that public discipline was justified against any of the judges identified in the Denver Gazette article,” the report continued, even though “any judge who missed even one annually required (financial) filing violated the law.”

One member of the commission, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Bonnie McLean, was one of the judges identified as delinquent in her filings. The commission’s report disclosed that McLean recused herself from discipline cases on five separate commission meeting dates, the most of any member.

Without providing details, the commission wrote that disciplinary proceedings occurred against one of its own members, in which all commissioners recused. A “specially constituted” commission was appointed to decide the case. 

Mangiardi, the commission’s director, told Colorado Politics McLean “remains a member” of the commission. She said the seven people who sat on the special panel were Bob Russel, Alexandra Brodsky, Michelle Maynard, Jill Van Noord, District Court Judges Brittany A. Schneider and Mark T. Bailey, and County Court Judge Timothy Lane.

The report concluded by explaining why it did not impose blanket discipline to all judges who violated the law.

73 Colorado judges under investigation for not filing financial disclosures

“The Commission considered this issue carefully and decided that such a broad swath approach would be akin to using a saw when a scalpel was more appropriate,” the commission wrote. “More specifically, the Commission felt that to impose collective punishment for uncoordinated, individual conduct was, effectively, to punish one for the unrelated misconduct of another, which is an affront to basic notions of fairness and due process.”

The Denver Gazette is a sibling publication of Colorado Politics.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with additional details from the commission.