A trial judge in northeastern Colorado intends to resign his seat if a disciplinary panel accepts the agreed-upon narrative of the misconduct allegations against him, the parties said during a first-of-its-kind proceeding on Friday.

The state Supreme Court suspended District Court Judge Justin B. Haenlein in November due to an ongoing investigation by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. Around the same time, voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment H, which restructured the process of disciplining judges to provide greater transparency earlier in the process.

That change resulted in the first-ever livestreamed status conference in a disciplinary case, held virtually through the courtroom of Weld County District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil. Vigil is a member of the three-person panel who will adjudicate Haenlein’s discipline, along with attorney Tyrone Glover and non-lawyer Jeff Swanty.

“The panel is very, very mindful of what it believes the intent of Amendment H to be. Very mindful of the state of Colorado has clearly indicated that these proceedings should be held in the light of day,” said Vigil.

However, Amendment H also necessitated a new set of judicial discipline rules, which have not come quickly enough to give the parties guidance about how Haenlein’s case should be handled.

Haenlein is a judge in the 13th Judicial District, consisting of Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Washington, Yuma and Kit Carson counties. Voters retained Haenlein last year by a margin of 57%-43%. The citizen-led performance commission that made a recommendation to voters offered a uniformly positive review of him.

The allegations against Haenlein have yet to be disclosed publicly, but members of the panel, the judicial discipline commission and Haenlein’s attorney anticipated during the status conference that documentation currently available to the panel will be widely released soon.

Although the parties suggested at the outset of the proceeding that they anticipated the disciplinary case might be at its conclusion if the panel accepts the agreed-upon sanction and narrative of events, panel members balked at that proposal. Primarily, they were concerned that Amendment H changed the landscape and a stipulated resolution by the parties was no longer sufficient for them to fulfill their own duties.

“I think the panel members feel strongly that at least they would like a formal charging document so they can use that as a benchmark to determine whether the panel members’ accepting the stipulation is not just in the parties’ interest, but in the public’s interest,” said Vigil.

“I’d like to know more how this decision was made,” said Swanty, referring to the parties’ agreement that Haenlein would resign if the panel accepted the parties’ resolution. “To me, it doesn’t seem the discipline is in line with what has been agreed to as the current facts. So, I would like to hear from both sides basically defending how you came up with this decision. To me, no offense, it seems out of line.”

Jeff Walsh, special counsel to the commission, clarified that removal from office was already the harshest sanction that can be imposed on a judge. He stressed the original allegations against Haenlein largely overlapped with the factual narrative the parties agreed to in reaching a resolution, and he did not believe additional documentation was necessary. 

“Judge Haenlein is on temporary suspension right now. He’s being paid, and that has been the circumstance for four months now,” Walsh said. “While he’s also being paid, while not working, the 13th Judicial District is currently laboring under the burden of being down a judge. That, I’m sure, is a struggle for them. So, time has been of the essence.”

He added that while the commission was not “keeping facts from the public,” he did want to protect the identity of a witness in the misconduct proceedings.

Glover defended the panel’s request to know more about where the case started so it could evaluate the propriety of the parties’ resolution and not “rubber stamp” it.

“If a member of the public were going back to view what happened in this matter,” he said, “they’re not gonna know how this situation came together. They’re gonna see it was an agreement between the parties.”

The panel ordered the commission to file a document containing the allegations. Haenlein will file a response. Another status conference will be held on May 8.

The parties and the panel clarified that the primary hitch to wrapping up the case stemmed from the seeming repeal of judicial disciplinary rules in the wake of Amendment H. The constitutional amendment, in addition to creating the adjudicative body that hears formal disciplinary proceedings, also created a rule-making body. The chair of the rule-making committee previously told Colorado Politics that the entity is moving quickly to enact emergency rules.

“It’s just the reality of operating under a new process under which there is not actually rules that have yet been created to instruct us how to go about doing this,” said David Beller, the attorney for Haenlein.

“Nobody likes to be the first,” agreed Vigil.