A Montezuma County judge responded on Monday to the allegations of misconduct against him, arguing any poor decisions he may have made did not justify his removal from office and further insisting he did not lie to disciplinary officials.

In early September, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline accused County Court Judge Ian J. MacLaren of holding an unauthorized hearing in a criminal case, lying about his actions and using his status as a judge to get favorable treatment for a civil infraction. In MacLaren’s Sept. 29 response, he attributed any misunderstanding of criminal procedure to his relative newness on the bench and his lack of prior criminal experience.

“He has not yet completed his provisional term, and the voters have not yet had an opportunity to determine whether to retain Judge MacLaren. Instead, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline is seeking his removal from the bench based on conduct within his first seven months of service, based on imperfect decisions both on and off the bench,” wrote attorney Kevin M. McGreevy.

Gov. Jared Polis originally appointed MacLaren to the Dolores County Court in May 2024 as a part-time judge, then to the Montezuma County Court a few months later as a full-time judge. He previously worked as the Montezuma County attorney.

Pursuant to the constitutional amendment Colorado voters adopted last November, a three-member panel will formally adjudicate the allegations against MacLaren. Its members are Weld County District Court Judge Vincente G. Vigil, former Pueblo County District Attorney Jeff Chostner and non-attorney Jeannie Valliere.

“The Commission does not expect judges to be perfect or to remember things perfectly. However, the sheer number of misrepresentations made by Judge MacLaren to the Commission, including representations about matters that go to the heart of the Commission’s inquiry, demonstrates Judge MacLaren did not just make a series of mistakes here,” wrote Special Counsel Jeffrey M. Walsh in the Sept. 8 complaint against MacLaren.

As alleged by the commission and documented in contemporary materials, MacLaren was assigned the misdemeanor case of Montezuma-Cortez School District Superintendent Tom Burris. Prosecutors charged Burris with failing to report an alleged sexual relationship between a teacher and a student.

In February, the parties filed a diversion agreement, which would require Burris to undergo training on his obligations as a mandatory reporter, abstain from criminal activity and, in exchange, the case would be dismissed.

Colorado law required MacLaren, under the circumstances, to discontinue — or stay — the proceedings. Instead, MacLaren scheduled a hearing and texted a reporter about when would be “a good time to show up” in his courtroom.

When MacLaren asked the prosecutor to explain “why there was a belief that a diversion agreement was appropriate” for Burris, Deputy District Attorney Justin H. Pierce quoted the law and Colorado Supreme Court precedent. MacLaren, he continued, was “in noncompliance” by holding the hearing.

MacLaren acknowledged he was “in no position to … do anything about” the diversion agreement and that “legally, I have to stay the proceedings.” Yet, MacLaren delivered extended remarks about the “very concerning” allegations against Burris. He called the diversion agreement a “slap on the wrist,” adding that if the diversion agreement were a plea deal — which it was not — he would have rejected it.

Cameryn Cass, The Cortez Journal’s reporter who MacLaren texted, published an article about the hearing and included a picture she took without authorization in the courtroom. MacLaren texted that he “like(d) that picture!”

On April 24, Anne Mangiardi, director of the discipline commission, invited MacLaren to respond to a misconduct complaint against him for his handling of the Burris case. She specifically asked him to explain why he held an unauthorized hearing, address whether he sought press coverage for it and describe whether he was aware of the unapproved courtroom photo.

MacLaren responded on May 20. He first noted he was “relatively new to the county court bench” and that the hearing was intended to “ensure transparency in the judicial process.”

He then made multiple statements the discipline commission alleged were verifiably false. For example, MacLaren asserted that holding a hearing for Burris’ diversion agreement was his practice “consistent across all cases.” In reality, the commission alleged MacLaren had never done that before based on case records.

MacLaren also stated that at “no point did I suggest” Cass should attend or cover the hearing, that he was “not trying to generate any press coverage” and that he “never provided her with ‘news tips’.” His text messages with Cass appeared to contradict all of those statements.

Separately, while the discipline investigation was pending, Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials approached MacLaren two days in a row in June while he was boating on McPhee Reservoir. According to the incident report, MacLaren acknowledged during the first encounter that he knew he needed to register his boat, but had not done so.

The following day, MacLaren “claimed he had tried to register” online but had encountered “technical difficulties.” After the officer informed MacLaren he could update his registration in person, MacLaren “claimed he did not have time due to his occupation as a Judge.”

“While navigating their own boat to shore, and out of earshot of Judge MacLaren, the officers debated amongst themselves whether to ticket Judge MacLaren in light of his revelation that he was a judge,” Walsh wrote in the discipline commission’s complaint. “Their concern was that, if they ticketed Judge MacLaren, he might have a poor opinion of CPW officers or their agency, and that this might adversely affect cases before Judge MacLaren in which CPW officers were witnesses.”

Responding to the complaint, MacLaren argued the commission’s narrative “overreaches on facts and makes incorrect assumptions and conclusions in a heavy-handed attempt to remove this new judge.”

He disputed that his handling of the diversion agreement was improper, and contended for the first time that he did not actually have to stay the case because the filing lacked a proper signature from Burris’ attorney. That argument contradicted MacLaren’s own statement at the hearing that “legally, I have to stay the proceedings.”

MacLaren further denied that his text to Cass about “a good time to show up” in his courtroom amounted to “an invitation or request.”

“He improvidently provided Ms. Cass with notices about the dates/times of the hearings, but nothing else,” wrote McGreevy. “Judge MacLaren did not lie to the Commission about the facts concerning his communications.”

MacLaren further acknowledged he had not treated any other cases with diversion agreements identically to his handling of the Burris case, but his contrary response to Mangiardi “was made prior to any review of cases he had handled and based on his recollection.” MacLaren pointed out it was far more typical for the parties to announce a diversion agreement in the courtroom, which allegedly led him to believe that the Burris agreement needed to be addressed in court, too.

Finally, MacLaren admitted he “was in error in mentioning — for any reason — that he was a judge” to the wildlife officers.

“While his intent was to offer an explanation why going to an office to obtain a permit during the work week was difficult, he should not have mentioned his judicial status for any reason,” wrote McGreevy. The response did not explain why MacLaren, who first encountered the officers on a Saturday, continued boating without a permit on Sunday.

“Judge MacLaren acknowledges that he should have made different decisions at particular moments under review,” concluded McGreevy. “Yet the sum total of his errors do not rise to the prospect of removal from office.”

Editor’s note: The original version of this story contained a typo in MacLaren’s name.