{"id":15462,"date":"2025-12-01T23:11:26","date_gmt":"2025-12-02T06:11:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/montezuma-judge-maclarens-misconduct-case-shows-gap-in-colorados-judicial-reform\/"},"modified":"2026-03-30T21:48:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T03:48:10","slug":"montezuma-judge-maclarens-misconduct-case-shows-gap-in-colorados-judicial-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/montezuma-judge-maclarens-misconduct-case-shows-gap-in-colorados-judicial-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Montezuma Judge MacLaren\u2019s misconduct case shows gap in Colorado\u2019s judicial reform"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Chief
Chief Judge Todd Plewe (left) in June 2024 swore in Ian MacLaren to the bench of the 22nd Judicial District in Dove Creek. By November, MacLaren was sworn into the district\u2019s Montezuma County Court. In early September of 2025, the new judge became the subject of a misconduct case filed by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline. (Thomas R. Williamson\/Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

Colorado\u2019s judicial reform measure, Amendment H, promised transparency and accountability. But its delayed implementation has left a critical gap in Montezuma County Judge Ian MacLaren\u2019s misconduct case: how to prepare for a hearing without clear rules.<\/p>\n

MacLaren\u2019s attorney and the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline are debating which framework should govern discovery and scheduling as they prepare for a hearing.<\/p>\n

With no Amendment H rules in place to guide prehearing discovery, Judge Vincente Vigil \u2013 who chairs the new Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board overseeing the case \u2013 said his panel will \u201cfollow the spirit\u201d of the old rules.<\/p>\n

The choice of rules matters because it affects timing. Previous standards required a hearing within 91 days of the at-issue date. Vigil acknowledged meeting that deadline would be difficult but said the board still intends to honor the old rules\u2019 intent.<\/p>\n

\n

Who\u2019s who in the MacLaren case?<\/p>\n

Name<\/strong>Refers to<\/strong>Role in case<\/strong>Ian MacLaren (respondent)22nd Judicial District Judge in Montezuma CountyJudge being accused of ethical breachesKevin McGreevyMacLaren\u2019s attorneyProvides legal counsel to MacLarenColorado Commission on Judicial Discipline (complainant)Agency addressing complaints of alleged judicial misconductLegal team seeking MacLaren\u2019s removal from the benchJeffrey WalshSpecial Counsel to Colorado CommissionAdvocates for Commission\u2019s stance against MacLarenJudicial Discipline Adjudicative Board (after Amendment H passed in November 2024)District judge, volunteer lawyer and volunteer citizen together conducts hearing over caseDecides on MacLaren\u2019s caseVincent VigilJudge on Adjudicative BoardDecides on MacLaren\u2019s case<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

MacLaren\u2019s counsel argued in a Nov. 15 motion<\/a> that applying past rules to a case management order could violate the 22nd District judge\u2019s due process rights and hinder the defense\u2019s preparation. Instead, the filing urged using Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure going forward.<\/p>\n

The Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, which started proceedings against MacLaren, agreed to use civil rules in a Nov. 21 response<\/a>, but said a case management order could use pre-Amendment H rules and that a hearing should be scheduled quickly.<\/p>\n

The commission added that both parties could craft a unique joint case management order, which could then be altered as desired by the adjudicative board.<\/p>\n

In early September, the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline released a complaint against MacLaren<\/a>, accusing the judge of misusing his power to hold a performative hearing and avoid a boating ticket, then of lying during an inquiry.<\/p>\n

Amendment H, a statewide ballot measure passed by 73% of voters<\/a> in November 2024, opened the doors to greater transparency when judges are disciplined<\/a> in cases of alleged wrongdoing and removed the Colorado Supreme Court from that process.<\/p>\n

Colorado\u2019s constitution was amended to establish the new authority, the three-person Judicial Discipline Adjudicative Board consisting of a judge, a lawyer and a citizen.<\/p>\n

The constitutional amendment is still being adopted, leaving questions like the timing of prehearing discovery for judicial discipline cases open-ended.<\/p>\n

What guides discovery is important because it ultimately lays out a timeline for the case. The Commission has said that for the sake of public interest, they want MacLaren\u2019s hearing to happen sooner rather than later.<\/p>\n

What framework gets adopted for MacLaren\u2019s future proceedings will ultimately determine whether the judge retains his seat.<\/p>\n

Attempts to reach MacLaren and his legal counsel were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

Anne Mangiardi, executive director of the Colorado Office of Judicial Discipline, said the commission could not offer an comment beyond their motion.<\/p>\n

What was MacLaren accused of?<\/div>\n

The proceedings against MacLaren \u2013 appointed <\/a>to his seat by Gov. Jared Polis in October 2024 \u2013 came about after the judge called a diversion agreement <\/a>reached for Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 Superintendent Harry (Tom) Burris a \u201cslap on the wrist.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint alleges<\/a> that MacLaren scheduled a hearing intentionally to criticize Burris, who was cited for misdemeanor failure to report an allegation of child abuse.<\/p>\n

MacLaren presumed the superintendent to be guilty, invited news media to advance his own self-image, and in a separate matter, used his position as a judge to sway Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers from giving him a ticket for an expired boat registration, the complaint alleges.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the commission alleges that when asked about the matters, MacLaren misrepresented the truth.<\/p>\n

\u201cJudges are guardians of the honesty and integrity that are the foundation for the public\u2019s confidence in our justice system,\u201d the complaint reads. \u201cPut simply, Judge McLaren (sic) can\u2019t credibly swear in witnesses to \u2018tell the truth\u2019 if he can\u2019t do the same. Given this, the Commission on Judicial Discipline, regretfully, is compelled to seek removal.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Judge Ian MacLaren is alleged to have violated multiple ethical canon rules:<\/h4>\n

Canon Rule 1.2 states in relevant part: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Canon Rule 1.3 states in relevant part: A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so. Canon Rule 2.2 states in relevant part: A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. Canon Rule 2.3(A) states in relevant part: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice. Canon Rule 2.4 states in relevant part: (A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge\u2019s judicial conduct or judgment. Canon Rule 2.6(A) states: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person\u2019s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Canon Rule 2.16(A) states: A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Writing in response<\/a> to the proceedings, MacLaren\u2019s counsel admitted to some allegations on the judge\u2019s behalf, pointing to his \u201cimperfect decisions both on and off the bench.\u201d<\/p>\n

The response denied other portions of the complaint, saying the commission \u201coverreaches on facts and makes incorrect assumptions and conclusions in a heavy-handed attempt to remove this new judge.\u201d<\/p>\n

Parties disagree on whether to follow pre-Amendment H rules<\/div>\n

As MacLaren\u2019s case begins, a disagreement has emerged over how to address Amendment H. The ballot measure is too new for parties to clearly know how it applies.<\/p>\n

Parties are still deciding on prehearing discovery \u2013 the phase that sets when and how the hearing will occur, its length and whether it will be virtual or in person. The discovery phase determines what evidence can be used in court and gives parties notice to prepare arguments.<\/p>\n

Parties are still deciding on prehearing discovery \u2014 the phase that sets when and how the hearing will occur, its length and whether it will be virtual or in person. The discovery phase determines what evidence can be used in court and gives parties notice to prepare arguments.<\/p>\n

In other words, the old rules would guide the case, Vigil said, inviting both parties to file briefs in response.<\/p>\n

Amendment H was intended to create a \u201crulemaking committee\u201d to set standards for such cases, but, as MacLaren\u2019s legal counsel wrote in a Nov. 15 response, that committee \u201chas yet to promulgate any interim rules governing discovery processes and\/or hearing timelines in matters before the judicial discipline adjudicative board.\u201d<\/p>\n

MacLaren\u2019s legal counsel asked the board to apply Colorado\u2019s Rules of Civil Procedure, a legal framework for civil cases, to govern discovery and other proceedings.<\/p>\n

To not do so would \u201crun the significant risk of violating the Respondent\u2019s procedural due process rights and potentially undermine the Respondent\u2019s ability to adequately prepare a defense in this matter,\u201d wrote MacLaren attorney Kevin McGreevy.<\/p>\n

Going by the former rules for judicial discipline would be out of line with the intent of Amendment H, McGreevy wrote.<\/p>\n

The Commission, in contrast, disputed MacLaren\u2019s argument in a Nov. 21 motion.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the Panel deems it appropriate to create a Case Management Order that \u2018follows the spirit\u2019 of the old Rules of Judicial Discipline, it can and should do exactly that,\u201d wrote Jeffrey Walsh, the commission\u2019s Special Counsel.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo do so would be to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, not to \u2018circumvent\u2019 them, as Judge MacLaren suggests.\u201d<\/p>\n

The commission said civil code provisions allow judges to craft case management orders case by case.<\/p>\n

Both parties agreed that Colorado\u2019s civil case framework can guide the case, the commission said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Commission nevertheless asks that a hearing be set as soon as possible and asks that needless discovery disputes not be allowed to cause further delays,\u201d their motion reads.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not a complicated case. The facts are largely undisputed. The number of witnesses is relatively small. The number of documents and exhibits to be admitted at hearing is expected to also be small. Given this, the scope of prehearing discovery need not be broad or complicated.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Parties diverge on whether to allow old rules for judicial discipline to guide prehearing discovery, and therefore how soon MacLaren\u2019s hearing will occur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15463,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[28,29],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-15462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-headlines","tag-newsletter"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15462","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15462"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15462\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19670,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15462\/revisions\/19670"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15463"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15462"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=15462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}