Colorado’s method of investigating and disciplining judges for alleged violations of its code of conduct doesn’t apply to retired jurists specially appointed to handle individual cases.

Similarly, the state’s investigative arm that looks into allegations of attorney misconduct also has no jurisdiction over issues involving private judges, as they are known, outside of the same code of professional conduct lawyers must follow, both discipline authorities have told The Denver Gazette.

That means, for the moment, any alleged misconduct by a judge appointed by Colorado’s chief justice to take on a case — The Denver Gazette recently published an investigation, in which it identified at least a half dozen private judges who have made political contributions barred by the Code of Judicial Conduct they are required to abide by — falls into a black hole where no one has any oversight of them.

To that end, Colorado’s Judicial Department on Thursday told The Denver Gazette it would move to amend the “oversight” by considering a change of the rules under which the Commission on Judicial Discipline operates.

“The Constitution gives the Commission on Judicial Discipline the exclusive authority to investigate complaints against judges,” Judicial Department spokeswoman Suzanne Karrer wrote in an email. “However, the Rules of Judicial Discipline provide that the Commission’s jurisdiction extends only to active and senior judges. We believe this is an oversight in the rules, and we have flagged the issue for the judicial discipline rules committee to address. We have also discussed these potential rules revisions with the Office of Judicial Discipline.”

The move follows a Denver Gazette investigation into the department’s private judge program, an exclusive and little-known process, in which civil litigants can bypass the normal assignment of a sitting district court judge and hire a retired judge to handle their case. The retired judge is appointed only by Colorado’s chief justice and remains on the case unless the judge recuses themselves because of a conflict or drops the case because the litigants have not paid the judge as agreed.

The appointed judge program was designed to help with overcrowded civil court dockets but has been used nearly exclusively by Colorado’s wealthy and elite to get divorced. The rules governing appointed judges note that litigants are entirely responsible for the expenses of each case, ensuring the state bears none of the financial responsibility it would if it were heard by a full-time judge.

The Denver Gazette found that some private judges are hired dozens of times and simultaneously handle cases at paydays that are triple the salary they collected as regular district court judges, with some cases going on for years. The newspaper also found that private judges suppressed cases from the public at rates far greater than regular judges. The newspaper also reported that there is no easy method for the public to review why a case is suppressed because the judge’s order and the underlying request to suppress it are also suppressed.

Supreme Court rules regarding how private judges are chosen mandate that each jurist must follow the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct, which lays out things judges are prohibited from doing while on the bench. One universal was that all judges — including appointed ones — are prohibited from making campaign contributions of any kind.

That there is no oversight of a private judge’s conduct is “ludicrous,” former 10th District Chief Judge Dennis Maes said.

“That’s simply ridiculous. Talk about a special interest group getting preferential treatment for unregulated prohibited activity,” said Maes, a proponent of changes to the judiciary. “It’s absurd to say we have a rogue group of judges authorized by the Supreme Court who are not subject to any oversight at all. How ridiculous. How ludicrous.”

The Dever Gazette found at least seven private judges had made contributions to candidates for federal or state elections during their appointment, including former Chief Justice Nancy Rice. Some made dozens of contributions totaling thousands of dollars.

Although two of the judges interviewed by The Denver Gazette said were unaware of the prohibition — with each appointment a judge signs a separate oath that says they will comply with the Code of Conduct — and would self-report their contributions to the discipline commission, that body recently determined it had no jurisdiction.

It pointed to its own rules that say it only has jurisdiction over active and senior judges, which it says doesn’t include appointed ones.

“Because judges appointed to serve on an individual case are not ‘active’ or ‘senior’ judges, and because the complaints (of campaign contributions) were not received ‘during the Judge’s term of office or within one year following the end of the judge’s term of office’ or ‘during the Judge’s service in the senior judge program or within one year following the end of the Judge’s service in the senior judge program,’ the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the issues raised in your recent article,” commission executive director Anne Mangiardi wrote The Denver Gazette in an email.

She referred The Denver Gazette to Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, which handles discipline of attorneys.

“The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel has jurisdiction to consider a complaint that an appointed or private judge has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct — the same rules that apply to other attorneys,” Counsel Jessica Yates emailed The Denver Gazette. “Our office does not have jurisdiction to evaluate a private/appointed judge’s compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Yates added: “The procedural rule applicable to private/appointed judges … does not have a provision for complaints about appointed judges to be filed with our office.”

The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit campaign contributions.

The interpretations by both authorities were called “absurd” by the former executive director of the discipline commission.

“The respective absurd interpretations of the Colorado Rules of Judicial Discipline and the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct create a blackhole of judicial lawlessness, making it clear that both the CCJD and OARC have embraced becoming tools of judicial self-protection, rather than performing their mandates as legitimate regulators,” Christopher Gregory wrote The Denver Gazette in an email Thursday. “The CCJD and OARC’s mutual disclaimer of jurisdictional authority is particularly offensive and corrosive because private judges are paid by the parties whose cases they hear.”

Gregory noted that discipline commission rules define a judge as “any justice or judge of any court of record in this state serving on a full time, part-time, senior, or retired basis against whom a complaint has been filed or initiated.” He also noted that the rule Mangiardi said the commission relied on to make its determination doesn’t exclude private judges from the definition of an “active” one.

“Disclaiming jurisdiction over private judges is only the latest shining example of the CCJD overtly protecting the Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court from legitimate public scrutiny and ethical accountability,” Gregory wrote. “This time, the CCJD is blatantly disregarding its constitutional mandate to protect former Chief Justice Rice.”

Gregory was dismissed as the commission’s executive director in January 2024, following a tumultuous tenure that began amid a silence-for-contract scandal in which it was alleged the then-chief justice approved a multi-million-dollar deal to a former employee who threated a tell-all sex-discrimination lawsuit.

Gregory was an outspoken proponent of changes to the state’s judicial discipline system and pressed for greater autonomy by the commission from the Supreme Court.

Voters in November 2024 approved Amendment H which created a new process for investigating and disciplining judges.