A judge from northeastern Colorado resigned at the end of Wednesday, and, in doing so, admitted to allegations that he used his position to aid a friend in her court case and did not disclose his personal connection in other cases involving that friend.

District Court Judge Justin B. Haenlein presided in the 13th Judicial District of Morgan, Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Washington, Yuma and Kit Carson counties. He had been off the bench since the Colorado Supreme Court suspended him in November, pending a disciplinary investigation.

In an April 29 letter addressed to Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez, he announced his resignation effective on April 30. Also on April 29, Haenlein’s attorney submitted a filing to the three-member panel adjudicating his disciplinary case, informing them that his resignation triggered the end of the proceedings and they may not impose further sanctions.

Also, the adjudicative panel “is operating without any clearly articulated rules or procedures. The absence of rules and procedures may deny Judge Haenlein his constitutional right to due process of law,” wrote attorney David M. Beller.

Anne Mangiardi, the executive director of the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, told Colorado Politics the panel and commission “retain jurisdiction over a judge who resigns or retires during the course of a proceeding.” Weld County District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil, the judge member of the panel, also did not immediately respond with his view on the subject.

Beller’s comment about the absence of rules and procedures refers to the voters’ adoption of constitutional Amendment H in November, which revamped the process of judicial discipline to provide more transparency earlier in the process. Vigil cited Amendment H in a status conference the panel held for Haenlein’s case last month, which was the first-ever livestreamed judicial discipline hearing in Colorado.

A rule-making committee, which Amendment H also created, is currently crafting emergency rules under the assumption that the constitutional change repealed all of the existing disciplinary rules. The lack of firm procedures led to heated discussion during the April 11 status conference, as the panel demanded more information from Haenlein and the judicial discipline commission that would provide the public greater insight into the case.

The panel, consisting of Vigil, attorney Tyrone Glover and non-lawyer Jeff Swanty, directed the commission to file a statement of the charges, which Haenlein would then respond to. 

In an April 15 filing, the commission alleged Haenlein violated four rules of judicial conduct through an undisclosed relationship with one of his former clients.

Haenlein became a judge in January 2022 after practicing in criminal defense and child welfare cases. He represented a client, identified as “Jane Doe,” in multiple criminal cases and allegedly exchanged “sexual and flirtatious text messages.” Haenlein would also help Doe with certain living expenses.

At the time of Haenlein’s appointment, he represented Doe in a domestic relations case. Although he withdrew as her lawyer, Haenlein allegedly used the Judicial Department’s case management system to give legal advice — “interspersed with explicit sexts” — to Doe about the case.

In July 2022, Doe appeared before Haenlein as a defendant in a felony drug case. Haenlein disclosed Doe was his prior client but did not raise their intimate relationship. Neither the defense nor the prosecution asked Haenlein to recuse and he presided over Doe’s case for two years, which resolved in a guilty plea. He made multiple procedural rulings and ultimately sentenced her.

While Doe was a defendant in the criminal case Haenlein was handling, she allegedly texted him that her boyfriend would also be appearing as a defendant in Haenlein’s courtroom. She asked for his release. The boyfriend was accused of a drug felony in Colorado and an aggravated assault felony out of Kansas. Judges previously set bond at $7,500 and $10,000, respectively.

The defendant’s attorney asked Haenlein to release him pending trial on a personal recognizance bond. The district attorney’s office objected, but Haenlein granted the defense’s request. He did not disclose his personal connection to the case.

The judicial discipline commission alleged it was “objectively inappropriate” for Haenlein to release a defendant under the circumstances.

In his answer, Haenlein admitted to the allegations of misconduct, with some qualifications. He asserted any “personal and flirtatious communication” between Doe and himself ended prior to presiding over her criminal matter. Further, their relationship “never became physical or intimate in any fashion.”

Haenlein also argued his decisions in Doe’s case and those of her boyfriend were routine and neither defendant received “preferential treatment.”

District Attorney Travis Sides said his office historically “struggled with a lot of Judge Haenlein’s rulings,” disagreeing with sentences and bond amounts. Consequently, Sides did not believe Haenlein’s actions were abnormal in the cases where he had an undisclosed conflict.

“I imagine for his family, this has to be really hard. I’m sad about that. I’m sad for them,” said Sides. Also, it is “super important that we have a justice system where people are treated justly and fairly. And when you have things like this happen, it hurts people’s confidence.”

“Whether it’s someone having to go to court for a speeding ticket case or they’re getting divorced,” he continued, “their impression of the criminal justice system is based in large part on the judge, how did the judge treat them. …  Whenever you have a judge engage in any kind of misconduct, that casts aspersions on the bench itself.”

Haenlein’s answer to the misconduct allegations indicated he believed the adjudicative panel should either dismiss the case or publicly censure him.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional comments.